[CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem

[Malcolm Hutty]

On 30/09/2015 01:15, Jordan Carter wrote:
> *Here is a suggestion.*
> *
> *
> *For the exercise of any of the Member Powers the CMSM would have
> (beyond those we "want" it to have), why don't we include the ICANN
> Board as one of the groups that has to vote / come to consensus to
> exercise them?*

Thank you Jordan, that's a very interesting suggestion.

Let me suggest another, along similar lines, that occurred to me on last
night's call.

Fadi said that he would be very happy for the Single Member to have the
ultimate power in ICANN if it reflected the entire community, but was
concerned about "concentrating power" in it as it did not reflect the
whole community, as some parts of the community had said they could not
participate in the Single Member.

It is possible Fadi misspoke. Perhaps he was not really offering a
reason for objecting to our proposal, but was simply trotting out a
debating point to cover his fundamental opposition to giving up power. I
know some here will suspect him of such intransigence, and counsel that
the only way forward is for us to bend to the Board's will. But I think
it is better, and more productive, not to mention more respectful, to
treat Fadi as sincere, and to address his stated concern directly.

 *For that reason, I would like to propose that we amend our Report to
state explicitly that GAC, RSSAC and SSAC will participate in the Single
Member in an advisory capacity, as they do on the Board. The mechanism
and procedure for these bodies to provide advice to the Single Member
will be the Community Forum, as already defined.*

It now strikes me that we may have erred in saying that SSAC, RSSAC and
(possibly) GAC would/might not participate in the Single Member. The
only thing in which they may not participate is the vote that directs
how the Single Member acts. It is entirely possible for them participate
fully in the deliberations the Single Member undertakes prior to taking
a decision, giving their advice as they see fit.

Of course, I understand that we never intended to exclude these bodies
from giving their advice in the Community Forum. In the "reality" of our
intentions, the change I propose is no change at all. On the other hand,
Fadi expressly stated that he saw the non-participation of the bodies in
the Single Member as a real problem. In choosing to express ourselves as
saying that these bodies are unable to participate in the Single Member
we have invited that criticism; an outcome that can be readily corrected.

It should be noted that this would exactly mirror the current position
of these bodies on the Board: they participate in the Board by means of
giving advice, but do not participate in votes. So it would be no more
true to say that what I propose does not count as real participation in
the Single Member than that it would be true to say that they do not
participate in the current governance arrangements.

Perhaps this will resolve it. If not, if the Board say that "non-voting
is not sufficient, they must be voting too for the SMM to reflect the
whole community", then they must explain why they apply a different
standard to the SMM than to the Board. I think they would find hard to
justify to the community, to NTIA, to Congress that they were
withholding their support for a community proposal that would mirror
their own makeup, on the grounds that the require voting power to be
given to entities that have been offered it and declined.

I understand that there may be further, separate objections. But if we
are to find a way forward, we must consider each of them. If this is one
that can be crossed off the list, I would count that as progress.

-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
           21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA