<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>Hi all<br><br></div>Watching the process of finalising the CCWG-A proposal from afar is not easy and if my comments that follow are way off beam, please ignore them.<br><br></div>It seems to me that there are now two proposals on the table the CCWG-A's SMM and the Board's MEM.<br><br></div>The CCWG-A's proposal is the product of long debates and fine-tuning and represents, as Alan notes, a fragile compromise between the various stakeholders. The Board's MEM is clearly the product of the Board's thinking and strategising around the issue.<br><br></div>For me it would be a mistake to try and forge a compromise proposal between the SMM and the MEM. I would recommend that the two proposals be worked on separately and then tested before the Dublin meeting with the chartering organisations. <br><br></div>One observation I would make is that the SMM puts a high threshold on community decisions to take action on the community powers. The rationale behind this is to ensure that they are exercised minimally as instruments of last resort. The MEM tries to replicate this process in its procedures for activating the MEM:<br>Process to Initiate MEM Arbitration:<br>1.Any single SO or AC, by some measure of consensus, can initiate a petition to commence MEM Arbitration<br>2.The SO or AC would provide a notice of the petition to all other SOs and ACs and begin a discussion phase with all other SOs and ACs (15 days).<br>3.The SOs and ACs will then have 21 days to considerwhether to support the petition.<br>4.To initiate formal MEM proceedings, the agreed number of SOs and ACs must support the petition. If there is sufficient support amongst the SOs and ACs then representatives of those supporting Sos and ACs would become the MEM Issue Group.<br>5. The MEM Issue Group would then submit a request for Arbitration to the Standing Panel alleging a violation of at least one Fundamental Bylaw and including the grounds upon which that alleged violation occured.<br><br></div>This complicated process of consultation seems to be surplus to requirements. If there is no Sole Member, then any SO or AC should be able to initiate the Arbitration process based on its identiying a violation and the outcome of the arbitration should include the activation of any of the five Community Powers. Arbitration is there to test the veracity of the claimed violation - it does not matter whether more than one SO or AC agrees or not - because they are not consituted as members. This is why it is not helpful to mix the two proposals - they are addressing different accountability matters. If the Board wants its MEM then any stakeholder should be able to activate it. <br><br></div>Best regards<br></div>Willie Currie,<br><div><div><br><br><div><br></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Alan Greenberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
Looking forward to the end-point of this exercise, each of the chartering
organizations will have to decide whether to ratify the proposal.
Speaking on behalf of the ALAC, we have already gone on record as
endorsing certain options that are far from our preferred ones, but that
we can live with and that we believe will leave ICANN in a better
position than we are now. Each chartering organization will have to make
a similar choice.<br><br>
Ultimately, to put the recommended changes into effect, the Board, under
the current Bylaws, will have to approve the changes, as that is the only
way that the current Bylaws can be changed. Regardless of the amount of
community support, they will not likely violate their fiduciary duty and
approve changes that they collectively feel are not in the best interests
of ICANN, its constituent parts, and the public interest.<br><br>
In all cases, judgement calls will be involved.<br><br>
Any possible outcome, other than deadlock, needs to satisfy both sets of
constraints.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br>
Alan</font></span><div><div class="h5"><br><br>
At 28/09/2015 01:44 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type="cite">I certainly respect the
experience and perspective of the Board. On the other hand, I am
mindful of the fact that many participants in the CCWG have been laboring
in this field for a lot longer than the average Board member – indeed
from the inception. And, our views have been informed by extensive
public comments. So the experience and perspective of the CCWG –
both individual members and collectively – also deserves respect.
<br><br>
We can’t view this as binary. We must carefully consider what’s
best in all of the options on the table, understand what is do-able, and
proceed from that point. I do not see how we could fulfill our
obligations under the Charter by simply acceding to the Board’s
position. Nor do I think that is what the Board is demanding –
although I acknowledge the Board’s delivery sometime conveyed that
impression.<br><br>
B<br><br>
<br>
From: Rudolph Daniel
<<a href="mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com" target="_blank">rudi.daniel@gmail.com</a>
><br>
Date: Monday, September 28, 2015 at 1:11 PM<br>
To: James Gannon
<<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net" target="_blank">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>
><br>
Cc: Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>>,
Accountability Community
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment<br><br>
+1 James<br>
Community has journeyed too far to hang its head ...we may be at a
critical moment in the m' stakeholder process.<br>
RD<br>
On Sep 28, 2015 1:01 PM, "James Gannon"
<<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net" target="_blank">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>I would prefer not to throw away the multistakeholder process in the
name of the transition. I don’t know if I’m alone in that view but its
certainly one I hold.<br><br>
</dd><dd>-James<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
</dd><dd>On 28/09/2015 17:47,
"<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> on behalf of Kavouss
Arasteh"
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> on behalf of
<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
</dd><dd>>Avri<br>
</dd><dd>>You may agree that the Board submitted the results if its 17
years if implementation practices and experience whereas each of us have
just expressed our individual experience .<br>
</dd><dd>>Let us not argue that but just agree that what the Board
suggested stemmed from facts and figures in a more general than other
facts and figures submitted by individuals convoluted and amalgamated in
what CCWG suggested<br>
</dd><dd>>Kavouss<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>>Sent from my iPhone<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>>> On 28 Sep 2015, at 18:31, Avri Doria
<<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> Hi,<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> I disagree with the notion that the Board presents fact and
the rest of<br>
</dd><dd>>> the Community presents theory. Many in the other parts
of this<br>
</dd><dd>>> community have been involved in the ICANN bottom-up
multistakeholder<br>
</dd><dd>>> process for as long as the Board members. Some even
longer with a<br>
</dd><dd>>> greater degree of experience. And though our
view is not the view from<br>
</dd><dd>>> the privilege of Board perspective, it is probably just as
validly<br>
</dd><dd>>> based on that which is the case.<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> The Board's views are important, and based on their ability
to affect<br>
</dd><dd>>> the results of the community's work have a special role in
our<br>
</dd><dd>>> considerations. But please lets not elevate their
position to the one<br>
</dd><dd>>> truth we must all recognize.<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> avri<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>> On 28-Sep-15 11:38, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:<br>
</dd><dd>>>> Dear Ed<br>
</dd><dd>>>> I always respect your views but this time with a little
bit if reluctance.<br>
</dd><dd>>>> Board, s views contain a great degree of valuable
importance as it<br>
</dd><dd>>>> speaks for implementation of the idea whereas we purely
were thinking<br>
</dd><dd>>>> and discussing of almost theory.<br>
</dd><dd>>>> Regards<br>
</dd><dd>>>> Kavouss<br>
</dd><dd>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>> Sent from my iPhone<br>
</dd><dd>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>> On 28 Sep 2015, at 15:26, avri doria
<<a href="mailto:avri@ella.com" target="_blank">avri@ella.com</a><br>
</dd><dd>>>>
<<a href="mailto:avri@ella.com" target="_blank">
mailto:avri@ella.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
</dd><dd>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>> Hi,<br>
</dd><dd>>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>> Or we may have to realize that the Board's fear of
the community and<br>
</dd><dd>>>>> the FUD about what we might do, is so great that
they will never be<br>
</dd><dd>>>>> able to accept a membership model. The historical
and continuing<br>
</dd><dd>>>>> aversion of ICANN's Board and legal advisers to the
notion of<br>
</dd><dd>>>>> allowing the community to have any kind of
membership may just be<br>
</dd><dd>>>>> part of its nature and something they are incapable
of 'blinking'<br>
</dd><dd>>>>> about. It may be the threshold ceiling this
experiment in bottom up<br>
</dd><dd>>>>> multistakeholder process can never move beyond.
ICANN may, by its<br>
</dd><dd>>>>> very nature and history, never be able to become
fully what it<br>
</dd><dd>>>>> aspires to be recognized as.<br>
</dd><dd>>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>> It then may be up to the community to decide to take
whatever crumbs<br>
</dd><dd>>>>> of accountability we can get. One thing I am
certain of, one way or<br>
</dd><dd>>>>> another, ICANN will come out of this process
changed. It will either<br>
</dd><dd>>>>> continue to lead in developing a true
multistakeholder model. Or it<br>
</dd><dd>>>>> may just settle into a slow decline as another
organization that<br>
</dd><dd>>>>> never lived up to its promise.<br>
</dd><dd>>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>> avri<br>
</dd><dd>>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device<br>
</dd><dd>>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>> -------- Original message --------<br>
</dd><dd>>>>> From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse
<<a href="mailto:epilisse@gmail.com" target="_blank">epilisse@gmail.com</a><br>
</dd><dd>>>>>
<<a href="mailto:epilisse@gmail.com" target="_blank">
mailto:epilisse@gmail.com</a>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>> Date:09/28/2015 8:15 AM (GMT-05:00)<br>
</dd><dd>>>>> To: CCWG Accountability
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
</dd><dd>>>>>
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">
mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard
<<a href="mailto:directors@omadhina.NET" target="_blank">directors@omadhina.NET</a><br>
</dd><dd>>>>>
<<a href="mailto:directors@omadhina.NET" target="_blank">
mailto:directors@omadhina.NET</a>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board
sentiment<br>
</dd><dd>>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>> Ed,<br>
</dd><dd>>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>> of course we must give special attention to the
Board. Stare them in<br>
</dd><dd>>>>> the face until they blink :-)-O<br>
</dd><dd>>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>> el<br>
</dd><dd>>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>> --<br>
</dd><dd>>>>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini<br>
</dd><dd>>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>> On 28 Sep 2015, at 06:27, Edward Morris
<<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a><br>
</dd><dd>>>>>
<<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">
mailto:egmorris1@toast.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
</dd><dd>>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>>> Kavouss,<br>
</dd><dd>>>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>>> I personally attach a very hight level of
support to the Board,s<br>
</dd><dd>>>>>> comments which stem from 17 years of valuable
experience. While I<br>
</dd><dd>>>>>> support and appreciate public comments but we
should give special<br>
</dd><dd>>>>>> attention to the valuable comments from the
Board and should not put<br>
</dd><dd>>>>>> those comments in the sane basket of any
other comment received<br>
</dd><dd>>>>>> from individual .<br>
</dd><dd>>>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>>> I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. I
give no greater<br>
</dd><dd>>>>>> weight to the comments of a member of the Board
than I do to a<br>
</dd><dd>>>>>> comment from the least privileged amongst
us. I give power to the<br>
</dd><dd>>>>>> idea, not to the person or the organisation
making it.<br>
</dd><dd>>>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>>> Ed<br>
</dd><dd>>>>>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
</dd><dd>>>>>>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</dd><dd>>>>>>
<<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">
mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>>>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ZafcqlbrSgE4Bd9g3x12aZFbXdcCnbzhUqPK9_CgRa0&s=6sqOTKdEGThwLylpF-f8f81F0ZzUG2OQke29-vDbztw&e=" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br>
</dd><dd>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
</dd><dd>>>>>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</dd><dd>>>>>
<<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">
mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br>
</dd><dd>>>>>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ZafcqlbrSgE4Bd9g3x12aZFbXdcCnbzhUqPK9_CgRa0&s=6sqOTKdEGThwLylpF-f8f81F0ZzUG2OQke29-vDbztw&e=" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> ---<br>
</dd><dd>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.<br>
</dd><dd>>>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ZafcqlbrSgE4Bd9g3x12aZFbXdcCnbzhUqPK9_CgRa0&s=q9uHMjXcPTo0Md_Zw_otWCUhKM3U4yNucYSxVB5IahE&e=" target="_blank">
https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> _______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
</dd><dd>>>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</dd><dd>>>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br>
</dd><dd>>_______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
</dd><dd>><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</dd><dd>
><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br>
</dd><dd>_______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</dd><dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br><br>
</dd></dl>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>