<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Agree that it merits further consideration.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/10/2015 22:56, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHURmZs08sqC5ZKXub90FaoJp7ChHmnN38HxqiX0Amz6-Dw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I think this is a
reasonable suggestion. A "one-size-fits-all" (or don't wear
it) approach was not really working for us. The SO/ACs may be
equal (though some would argue otherwise) but they are not
identical, and a system that accounts for those differences,
without giving an elevated (or "special") status to any one
SO/AC, would seem to be warranted.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Edward
Morris <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">As a
matter of principle I object to any group, including the
GAC, having special status of any kind. It distorts the
multi-stakeholder model. As a practical matter, this is a
compromise solution that I could reluctantly accept.
Compromise never feels good, but it is the only way to move
things forward. Props to Keith for suggesting this and to my
Danish colleague for agreeing to it.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Ed Morris<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Finn Petersen <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:FinPet@erst.dk"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:FinPet@erst.dk">FinPet@erst.dk</a></a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> Keith<br>
><br>
> Your suggestion that<br>
><br>
> 1. The GAC remain advisory (no voting), but
otherwise participate actively in the Single Member
body/forum, etc.<br>
> 2. The GAC could also have special advisory status
within the Single Member body/forum, etc. similar to
that of its relationship to the Board.<br>
><br>
> is indeed very balanced and constructive and
something that DK fully can support!<br>
><br>
> Best<br>
><br>
> Finn<br>
><br>
><br>
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----<br>
> Fra: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
På vegne af Drazek, Keith<br>
> Sendt: 30. september 2015 18:38<br>
> Til: Kavouss Arasteh; James Gannon<br>
> Cc: Accountability Cross Community<br>
> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The
Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem<br>
><br>
> In my view, a balanced and constructive solution
would be to blend James' and Kavouss' suggestions:<br>
><br>
> 1. The GAC, SSAC and RSSAC remain advisory (no
voting), but otherwise participate actively in the
Single Member body/forum, etc.<br>
> 2. The GAC could also have special advisory status
within the Single Member body/forum, etc. similar to
that of its relationship to the Board.<br>
><br>
> This would mirror the current structure, ensure
full participation, and not erode the GAC's important
role and function in the community.<br>
><br>
> Might the GAC support this? Could the GAC formally
propose this?<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
> Keith<br>
><br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh<br>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:59 AM<br>
> To: James Gannon<br>
> Cc: Accountability Cross Community<br>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The
Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem<br>
><br>
> James<br>
> If really the community wishes to properly treat
GAC, another type if GAC advice should be included in
the Bylaws with the sane objectives as that of GAC
advice to ICANN Kavouss<br>
><br>
> Sent from my iPhone<br>
><br>
>> On 30 Sep 2015, at 15:19, James Gannon <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a></a>>
wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> So in order for the GAC to to happy to advise
the SMCM there would need to be another GAC special
advice bylaw, or am I misinterpreting?<br>
>> Is this a GAC position or?<br>
>><br>
>> -jg<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> On 30/09/2015 14:06, "<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a></a>
on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a></a>
on behalf of <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Mike,<br>
>>> I an sorry to say that your analysis of
the GAC Advice to the community to be similar to the
GAC Advice to the Board dies not seem to be legally
valid since the latter has a specific implementation
nature where the firmer has not since there Would be
nothing in the future Bylaws to that effect<br>
>>> Cheers<br>
>>> Kavouss<br>
>>><br>
>>> Sent from my iPhone<br>
>>><br>
>>>> On 30 Sep 2015, at 14:59, Chartier,
Mike S <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mike.s.chartier@intel.com">mike.s.chartier@intel.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> You're welcome.<br>
>>>> They should not vote, they should just
advise the single member the same way they advise the
board.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> On Sep 30, 2015, at 2:55 PM,
Kavouss Arasteh <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Dear mike<br>
>>>>> Thank you for the message.<br>
>>>>> May you please provide legal
arguments why an AC should be pushed to vote.?<br>
>>>>> Tks<br>
>>>>> Cheers<br>
>>>>> Kavouss<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On 30 Sep 2015, at 14:02,
Chartier, Mike S <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mike.s.chartier@intel.com">mike.s.chartier@intel.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> I think Malcolm has it exactly
right. The powers that the Single Member would be
exercising are a subset of the Board's today. So the the
GAC, RSSAC and SSAC should participate in the Single
Member as they do on the Board.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>>>>> From: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a></a><br>
>>>>>> [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a></a>]
On<br>
>>>>>> Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty<br>
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 30,
2015 5:04 AM<br>
>>>>>> To: Jordan Carter;
Accountability Cross Community<br>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way
to avoid the 'The Single Member Can<br>
>>>>>> Do Anything!' problem<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> On 30/09/2015 01:15, Jordan
Carter wrote:<br>
>>>>>>> *Here is a suggestion.*<br>
>>>>>>> *<br>
>>>>>>> *<br>
>>>>>>> *For the exercise of any of
the Member Powers the CMSM would have<br>
>>>>>>> (beyond those we "want" it
to have), why don't we include the<br>
>>>>>>> ICANN Board as one of the
groups that has to vote / come to<br>
>>>>>>> consensus to exercise
them?*<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Thank you Jordan, that's a very
interesting suggestion.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Let me suggest another, along
similar lines, that occurred to me on last night's call.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Fadi said that he would be very
happy for the Single Member to have the ultimate power
in ICANN if it reflected the entire community, but was
concerned about "concentrating power" in it as it did
not reflect the whole community, as some parts of the
community had said they could not participate in the
Single Member.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> It is possible Fadi misspoke.
Perhaps he was not really offering a reason for
objecting to our proposal, but was simply trotting out a
debating point to cover his fundamental opposition to
giving up power. I know some here will suspect him of
such intransigence, and counsel that the only way
forward is for us to bend to the Board's will. But I
think it is better, and more productive, not to mention
more respectful, to treat Fadi as sincere, and to
address his stated concern directly.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> *For that reason, I would like
to propose that we amend our Report<br>
>>>>>> to state explicitly that GAC,
RSSAC and SSAC will participate in<br>
>>>>>> the Single Member in an
advisory capacity, as they do on the<br>
>>>>>> Board. The mechanism and
procedure for these bodies to provide<br>
>>>>>> advice to the Single Member
will be the Community Forum, as<br>
>>>>>> already defined.*<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> It now strikes me that we may
have erred in saying that SSAC,<br>
>>>>>> RSSAC and<br>
>>>>>> (possibly) GAC would/might not
participate in the Single Member. The only thing in
which they may not participate is the vote that directs
how the Single Member acts. It is entirely possible for
them participate fully in the deliberations the Single
Member undertakes prior to taking a decision, giving
their advice as they see fit.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Of course, I understand that we
never intended to exclude these bodies from giving their
advice in the Community Forum. In the "reality" of our
intentions, the change I propose is no change at all. On
the other hand, Fadi expressly stated that he saw the
non-participation of the bodies in the Single Member as
a real problem. In choosing to express ourselves as
saying that these bodies are unable to participate in
the Single Member we have invited that criticism; an
outcome that can be readily corrected.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> It should be noted that this
would exactly mirror the current position of these
bodies on the Board: they participate in the Board by
means of giving advice, but do not participate in votes.
So it would be no more true to say that what I propose
does not count as real participation in the Single
Member than that it would be true to say that they do
not participate in the current governance arrangements.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Perhaps this will resolve it.
If not, if the Board say that "non-voting is not
sufficient, they must be voting too for the SMM to
reflect the whole community", then they must explain why
they apply a different standard to the SMM than to the
Board. I think they would find hard to justify to the
community, to NTIA, to Congress that they were
withholding their support for a community proposal that
would mirror their own makeup, on the grounds that the
require voting power to be given to entities that have
been offered it and declined.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> I understand that there may be
further, separate objections. But if we are to find a
way forward, we must consider each of them. If this is
one that can be crossed off the list, I would count that
as progress.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>> Malcolm Hutty | tel: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523"
value="+442076453523">+44 20 7645 3523</a> Head of
Public<br>
>>>>>> Affairs | Read the LINX Public
Affairs blog London Internet<br>
>>>>>> Exchange | <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/">http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a></a><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> London Internet
Exchange Ltd<br>
>>>>>> 21-27 St Thomas Street,
London SE1 9RY<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Company Registered in
England No. 3137929<br>
>>>>>> Trinity Court, Trinity
Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<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-communi"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communi</a><br>
>>>>>> ty
_______________________________________________<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-communi"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communi</a><br>
>>>>>> ty<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>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></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>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></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>
> _______________________________________________<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>
_______________________________________________<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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</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>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org">mshears@cdt.org</a>
+ 44 771 247 2987 </pre>
<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="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
<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="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>