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

Wed Sep 30 13:33:53 UTC 2015

Dear All,
We discussed the issue of GAC Advice to other entities than ICANN Board and
we ( GAC) concluded that duie to the specific coonnotation of the term "
ADVICE" of GAC in the Bylaws we must avoid to use that term else where .
Now if it is proposed to creat a siomilar ADVICE with identical effect to
that currently exist in the Bylaws, that is another matter yet to be
examined, analysed and agreed upon.
Regards
Kavouss

2015-09-30 15:19 GMT+02:00 James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>:

> So in order for the GAC to to happy to advise the SMCM there would need to
> be another GAC special advice bylaw, or am I misinterpreting?
> Is this a GAC position or?
>
> -jg
>
>
>
>
> On 30/09/2015 14:06, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
> behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" <
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Mike,
> >I an sorry to say  that your analysis of the GAC Advice  to the community
> to be similar to the GAC Advice  to the Board dies not seem to be legally
> valid since the latter has a specific implementation nature where the
> firmer has not since  there   Would be nothing in the future Bylaws  to
> that effect
> >Cheers
> >Kavouss
> >
> >Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On 30 Sep 2015, at 14:59, Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier at intel.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> You're welcome.
> >> They should not vote, they should just advise the single member the
> same way they advise the board.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Sep 30, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <
> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >_______________________________________________
> >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150930/0b85554a/attachment.html>