<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 03 October 2015 01:10 PM,
Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD_dc6jdXypZ0z8iDuYjsxTc-T8UKoNgH35gxVc0yt-S-WfRLw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Once again very helpful intervention with clear
rationale. Hopefully the CCWG will focus on the content and not
the author.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Since option 1 at the end of Bruce's email has been stated by a very
large number here to be inadequate oversight, what about considering
2<br>
<br>
"- move to a full membership model with appropriate diversification
and participation of members that include infrastructure operators
and users, with appropriate culture and geographical diversity"<br>
<br>
Has this ever been considered? If not, why so. When a member of the
ICANN board, albeit in his personal capacity, is stating this to his
second preference after the one that seems to most here to be
inadequate, what is the reason for not considering it. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD_dc6jdXypZ0z8iDuYjsxTc-T8UKoNgH35gxVc0yt-S-WfRLw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 3 Oct 2015 08:32, "Bruce Tonkin" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello All,<br>
<br>
The following is NOT a Board view.<br>
<br>
My personal thoughts on sole member is that I prefer a broader
membership structure to a sole membership structure.<br>
<br>
For me - a sole member concentrates all the responsibilities
of membership into a single legal entity. I much prefer more
distributed membership structures that are more likely to
represent the broader Internet community.<br>
<br>
I am not aware of any similar Internet based body that
operates under this model. I have been on the Board of
several non-profit organizations over the past 20 years in a
range of areas from sport to research to business, and I have
never personally had any experience in this model. I have
also done several company director courses and I have never
had this model come up in presentations or discussions.<br>
<br>
The sole member model also doesn't seem to particularly fit
the current SOs and ACs that often have different interests
and areas of focus For example SSAC and RRSAC have quite
narrow mandates to look at particular technical issues. They
do not generally get involved in ICANN strategic plans,
operating plans, budgets, and naming policies.<br>
<br>
I think it is far better that SOs and ACs participate in the
ICANN model as themselves. I think we can empower each of
these groups in our bylaws in appropriate ways.<br>
<br>
If the CCWG really wants to go down the single member model,
then I would prefer a much more formal structure.<br>
<br>
- make the single member an incorporated entity<br>
<br>
- set the articles of incorporation up to ensure that the
single member has a fiduciary responsibility to the Internet
community as a whole. I.e. align its fiduciary
responsibility to ICANN's fiduciary responsibility<br>
<br>
- have a board of the single member with the same structure as
ICANN - with SOs and ALAC appointing directors, set up a
nominating committee (or use the one we have) to select 8
directors, and have liaisons from GAC, SSAC, RSSAC and IETF.<br>
<br>
- include in its bylaws its mission (to be a member of ICANN),
and processes it will use to reach decisions and consult with
the community<br>
<br>
<br>
If this is sounding like what we already have - then that is
not surprising.<br>
<br>
I feel that it is certainly legally possible to create a sole
member - but it is practically highly unusual, and also seems
completely unnecessary in that we already have a Board that
does much the same thing. The Board listens to all parts of
the community before making major decisions, and acts for the
benefit of the Internet community as a whole.<br>
<br>
<br>
So vmy preference order is:<br>
<br>
- leverage the governance model we have and refine to have
additional powers for the SOs and ACs in the bylaws, have a
binding IRP mechanism if any SO or AC feels that board is not
following the bylaws, and set up a mechanism to ensure that
IRP decision is legally enforceable. This is broadly the
current Board proposal.<br>
<br>
- move to a full membership model with appropriate
diversification and participation of members that include
infrastructure operators and users, with appropriate culture
and geographical diversity<br>
<br>
- use a sole member model - with a fully incorporated member
and clear fiduciary responsibilities. Set up the board of
the sole member with an equivalent level of governance as we
have with the Board of ICANN.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bruce Tonkin<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>