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

Wed Sep 30 15:05:40 UTC 2015

Well if GAC would indeed want that why not. GAC advice remains an advice so
if GAC does not want to be part of exercising the community powers then so
be it. @Kavouss I hope you appreciate the implication of that option, it
simply means that any power that brings the community to a point of voting
to determine consensus would leave out GAC's participation, as advice does
NOT imply voting.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 30 Sep 2015 15:59, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> James
> If really the community wishes to properly treat GAC, another type if GAC
> advice should be included in the Bylaws with the sane objectives as that of
> GAC advice to ICANN
> Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 30 Sep 2015, at 15:19, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a38ecc77/attachment.html>