<html>
<body>
Subject to the following comments, I would support this, and I suspect it
would have general acceptance within At-Large.<br><br>
The caveats:<br><br>
- There are a number of ALAC comments to the current proposal that will
still apply and will be critical. Pending the details analysis and
resolution of the comments, I remain optimistic.<br><br>
- Steve's message does not talk about "the model", so I presume
it will be some variation of the board proposal (often referred to as
MEM, even though the MEM is only a component of it). That proposal calls
for the AC/SOs to take formal action through their Chairs. That idea was
rejected by the CCWG quite a while ago for a number of reasons
(reluctance of the people filling the Chair position to get involved at a
personal level, the difficulty associated with an ongoing action at the
time the Chair changes are the prime ones that I recall). The CCWG moved
to UA and then the Empowered AC/SO as a result, and then to the Community
Mechanism. The proved to be a stumbling block, but perhaps the Empowered
AC/SO or Community Mechanism could be adapted to work here.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 03/10/2015 05:00 PM, Chris Disspain wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Steve,<br><br>
Thank you for this. It chimes In essence with what I, and some others,
have been saying for a while.<br><br>
If we can coalesce around the powers you have listed (there may still be
issues for some around the budget power and some differences around
detail but nothing insurmountable IMO) and agree a pathway for ICANN 3.0
and beyond then I believe we can walk together as a community through the
transition. <br><br>
Happy to do whatever it takes to bring this to fruition in Dublin or
shortly thereafter. <br><br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Chris <br><br>
On 4 Oct 2015, at 07:34, Steve DelBianco
<<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Here are my own thoughts on a
path to Dublin and beyond. <br>
<br>
I was thinking about Jonathan Zuck’s suggestion
(<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-September/005764.html">
link</a>) that a change to Membership model could be done in Work Stream
2 —” if we create lasting leverage for community to enact a change
despite board resistance. <br><br>
Then I read Bruce Tonkin's recent post
(<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-October/006098.html">
link</a>) describing why our present AC/SO participation falls short of
representing the global M-S community, and suggesting this is why the
board might not approve a move to Membership at this time. <br><br>
Their posts, along with responses on list, suggest a way we can deliver
by Dublin on enforceable accountability enhancements, thereby giving us
powers to impose reforms to the AC/SO model after the IANA transition.
<br><br>
Consider this:<br><br>
Let’s use the leverage of the IANA transition to get bylaws changes
give the current AC/SO community the powers we require, with adequate
enforceability. Plus, we ensure those powers are enough to
force a future change to ICANN governance structure and/or Membership, if
the community comes to consensus around what that new ICANN governance
structure look like. <br><br>
That would mean we focus CCWG on finishing details and bylaws language
for these enforceable powers exercised by supermajority of ACs and
SOs:<br><br>
1. Power to block a proposed Operating Plan/Strat Plan/Budget<br>
2. Power to approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws and Articles of
Incorporation<br>
3. Power to block changes to regular bylaws.<br>
4. Power to appoint and remove individual board directors<br>
5. Power to recall the entire board of directors<br>
6. Mechanism for binding IRP where a panel decision is enforceable in any
court recognizing international arbitration results — even if ICCANN’s
board refused to participate in the binding arbitration. (assuming
CCWG lawyers verify this works without activating a Membership
model)<br><br>
I think we are close enough to get consensus around the above powers
before we leave Dublin. And based on what we’ve heard
recently, the board will support the powers described above. <br><br>
But there’s one more we have to add before losing the leverage of this
IANA transition:<br><br>
Let’s put into ICANN bylaws a method where the community can show
consensus to undertake a review of ICANN's governance structure, either
because the powers above aren’t working, or just because the community
overwhelmingly wants to review governance. The goal of the
Governance Review is to recommend a new governance model that might even
include moving to Membership. To Bruce’s point, any proposal
emerging from this Governance Review would include assurances that ACs
and SOs are representative of global internet users and protected from
capture. <br><br>
This same bylaw could describe a process for board acceptance of a
consensus proposal emerging from the Governance Review: it would
take 2/3 board majority to object to the proposal on the grounds that it
is not in the global public interest, triggering a board-community
consultation. After consultation, a new community proposal would
take 3/4 board majority to object. If the board objected a
second time, we would have the power to recall that entire board, or to
pursue binding arbitration. <br><br>
Again, these are my personal thoughts about a way forward that is based
on what others have said recently. <br><br>
—Steve DelBianco<br><br>
<br>
<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" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</blockquote>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</blockquote></body>
</html>