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

Wed Sep 30 14:52:55 UTC 2015

I agree with your analysis
Kavouss


Sent from my iPhone

> On 30 Sep 2015, at 16:35, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/cbaa98c3/attachment.html>