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

[Carlos Raul]

Thank you again Keith for the clear structure of your points. Very useful
to read again and I agree I heard basically the same arguments.

But I consistently missed (and keep missing in this thread) the RATIONALE
of the proposals for the single model and counterarguments of power
concentration, etc.

I recall the objective as  ".......to REPLACE the stewardship of the USG
trough the IANA contract and the AoC".

It is not against the Boards model, but against those independent standards
that the proposals that the effectiveness of each proposals has to be
measured. I don't see a need for compromise. The best model to replace the
" backstop" wins. Or not? Maybe I still miss something (or even a lot).

Best

CRG
On Sep 30, 2015 11:16 AM, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:

> Thanks Nigel.
>
> In no particular  order, my interpretation of the Board's written
> comments, what we heard in Los Angeles and from Fadi yesterday is:
>
> -- Introducing a different governance structure, i.e. membership, is new,
> untested, and cannot be proven to resist capture in the limited time
> available to meet the September 2016 date.
> -- Shifting authority from the Board to an untested membership body is
> potentially destabilizing and will be difficult or impossible to sell as
> not introducing risk at a delicate time.
> -- If we're going to shift authority, we must also shift a commensurate
> level of accountability, and the current SOs and ACs do not have sufficient
> accountability at this time.
> -- ICANN and its SOs/ACs need to be safe from capture from outside and
> from within; empowering the SOs and ACs without clear safeguards is
> problematic.
> -- Concentrating power in a new "sole membership" body is not balanced if
> it doesn't include all community members, and two groups (SSAC and RSSAC)
> have said they want to remain advisory.
> -- Shifting from consensus-based decision-making to reliance on a voting
> structure is not consistent with the multi-stakeholder model.
> -- The CCWG recommendation is too complex and difficult to
> explain/understand, so we need to make smaller, incremental changes that
> are more easily implemented and understood.
> -- A recommendation requiring a substantial governance restructuring will
> suggest that ICANN is currently broken -- a politically risky message going
> into the transition.
>
> I'm obviously not in a position to speak for the Board, but that's my
> non-legalistic reading of the concerns.  I'd be happy to be corrected if my
> interpretation is off-base.
>
> That was a reply to your question (a).  I can't respond to question (b).
>
> Regards,
> Keith
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel
> Roberts
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 12:46 PM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do
> Anything!' problem
>
> Let's be Frank, here.
>
> I'm not entirely unreceptive to the view expressed to me by at least one
> Board member regarding the idea of a quick win.
>
> HOWEVER, despite the fairly emphatic nature of the Board's objection to
> membership model, I do not believe I have read or heard any rationale or
> reasons for their, apparently unanimous, position.
>
> Personally I have serious doubts about the Single Member model, although,
> probably, they are not the same doubts as the Board's.
>
> But that is the outcome of this WG, and it should not tear up months of
> work without a rationale. This is simply the IFWP and history repeating
> itself, otherwise.
>
> Apparently there is some legal difference of opinion between Sidleys and
> Jones Day on the technicalities. But I do not beleive that can be the only
> reason.
>
> So, can someone please explain, in simply, preferable non legalistic terms
> why
>
> (a) the CCWG proposal is unsuitable
> (b) the Board's proposal is more suitable.
>
>
> > That said, I'm not confident this would resolve the Board's concerns
> with membership, so we will need to consider all options available to
> deliver community empowerment, including variations of the sole designator
> implementation.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b5ec21eb/attachment.html>