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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Wed Sep 30 12:55:16 UTC 2015


Dear mike
Thank you for the message.
May you please provide legal arguments why an AC should be pushed to vote.?
Tks 
Cheers
Kavouss  

Sent from my iPhone

> On 30 Sep 2015, at 14:02, Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier at intel.com> wrote:
> 
> I think Malcolm has it exactly right. The powers that the Single Member would be exercising are a subset of the Board's today. So the the GAC, RSSAC and SSAC should participate in the Single Member as they do on the Board.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 5:04 AM
> To: Jordan Carter; Accountability Cross Community
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem
> 
> 
> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community



More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list