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

[Greg Shatan]

Regardless of the structure we end up with, we are still going to have deal
with the issue of providing an opportunity for all of the SO/AC's to engage
(on terms suitable to that SO/AC) in the decision-making process (whatever
that process may be).  Our structure and method should be designed for
total participation.  If any group abstains or opts out of a specific
decision opportunity, that is fine.  But a seat at the (virtual) table and
the ability to participate should be our goal.

Greg

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 30 Sep 2015 10:04, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 30/09/2015 01:15, Jordan Carter wrote:
> > > *Here is a suggestion.*
> > > *
> > > *
> >
> >  *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.
> >
> SO: Interesting that you think what you've proposed above ensures exercise
> of power by the entire community. So GAC et all should continue talking
> under the community forum while other part of the community continue to use
> the power to direct ICANN through their votes under the same community
> forum. That's interesting way to ensure capture.
>
> We just have to balance up accountability on both sides of the community
> by going the sole designator route and ensuring that NO community power
> will be exercised by a section of the community! Even though that would not
> have been my preference on a normal day but it can be a compromise that one
> can live with.
>
> Regards
>
> > 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150930/522dda8b/attachment.html>