<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
While not arguing for the member model, as I have my own concerns
with the model ...<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 21-Apr-15 19:07, Chris Disspain
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:336507D2-907F-4D60-AA0B-BED0EDD7BD42@auda.org.au"
type="cite"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 13px;
color: rgb(102, 102, 102);"><span lang="EN-GB"><font
color="#444444">The current recommended model does not
provide any viable solution for dealing with the GAC. It
seems obvious to me
that the governments involved in the GAC are not going to
agree to form an
unincorporated association under Californian law. If I'm
right then presumably
the GAC would remain as an advisory committee and would not
be able to have a
vote in any of the escalation mechanisms. That may be fine
as the GAC may not
want to have a vote anyway. </font></span></span></blockquote>
<br>
The GAC currently does not have a voting Board Director. I have
understood that the reason is that they don't want one. Becoming a
member is largely about (s)electing a Director. While there are
other member oversight powers, the GAC has a special Bylaw status
that gives it a degree of ICANN oversight and takes it out of the
standard AC model; no other SOAC has the degree of control over the
Board that the GAC does. I see no reason why difficulties they
might have deciding to become members would be a gating
consideration on picking this model. I think that one of the points
about their special advice status is that they don't need to become
ICANN members to influence the Board.<br>
<br>
I have a viewpoint on the ccNSO and its ability to adequately
represent the interests of all ccTLDs, but figure the better part of
valor requires me to remain silent on that.<br>
<br>
On the other hand,<br>
<br>
As mentioned above, I have concerns with a member model as a WS1
solution, especially its implementation in the required time frame.
I also see the new accountability issues and capture scenarios of
the membership model as something that would need to explored and
documented; all of the SOAC legal entitieis would be new structures
and we would need to provide the details - WS1 is part of the IANA
submission. These days, the Board and its SIC (Structural
Improvements Committee) are the effective oversight for the SOAC
(except the GAC). Would that still be the case when they were
independent legal entities? If not, how would they prove
accountability and non-capture to their respective communities or to
the other members? I believe it could be done, but it is not a
quick job. Or does the Board and its SIC remain responsible as
today - if so, how would that work?<br>
<br>
Another question I have is on the member model as related to the
ATRT. The ATRT can make recommendations regarding any part of
ICANN, including the SOAC structure, both internal and in their
relationship to each other. As part of ATRT2, we made
recommendations related to GNSO policy development process, ATRT1
made recommendations about the relationship between the Board and
the GAC. Would that still be in scope when to the SOAC became
independent legal entities? Would we need to modify the AOC
derivative bylaws to deal with that?<br>
<br>
The more I think about the member model, the more questions I come
up with. <br>
Do we absolutely need this to achieve what we need for WS1? <br>
Or is it the 'Tesla' we wish we had.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="http://www.avast.com/">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<br><a href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>