[Party1] Accountability Mechanism Template WP-1-F | Community Veto Proposal

[Greg Shatan]

I would be opposed to a group composed solely of SO and AC chairs.  It is a
mistake to treat all SO's and AC's as equivalent organizations.  They are
not.  Specifically, the GNSO consists of 4 separate Stakeholder Groups, two
of which are composed of 2-3 separate Constituencies.  One of those
Stakeholder Groups, the Registry SG, is really the equivalent of the ccNSO,
and when the new gTLD program wraps up, the RySG will represent more
registries than the ccNSO (even including the non-ccNSO ccTLDs).  Other
Stakeholder Groups include the Registrar SG, the Non-Commercial SG,
essentially the equivalent of "Civil Society," and the Commercial SG,
essentially the equivalent of the "Private Sector."  (And that does not
even take the substantial variation at the Constituency level into account
-- the ISPs, for example, are stuffed into the Commercial SG.)

Are we suggesting that the ccNSO should share a seat with representatives
of, registrars, the private sector and civil society? No -- that would seem
absurd.  It's no less absurd to do that on the gTLD side.

The GNSO and its hierarchical structure exist for a particular purpose --
to develop policy recommendations for gTLDs.  Using that structure for
other purposes is an abuse of the structure, and ultimately a distortion
and an abuse of the multistakeholder model.

Greg Shatan

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>
wrote:

>   All,
>
>  Not so much a content reaction, but the template set me thinking.
>
>  Somehow, referring to your "*This challenge mechanism would only apply
> to a narrow set of predetermined high impact board decisions such as the
> adoption of the organization’s strategic plan, approval of the budget,
> approval of bylaws, etc*.” we should „merge" or „synchronize” this with
> the work done on powers 1A, 1B and 1C (Vetoing changing to the bylaws,
> vetoing the budget/strategic plan, vetoing board action in conflict with
> bylaws).
>  Veto’s with different impact should have different voting thresholds, but
> the rest of the „ingredients” of the powers will mostly be the same and I
> have the impression that as a WS/WG we are pretty much aligned on those
> ingredients. That also applies for template 7A- removing the board of
> directors, that Jordan presented in yesterdays call.
>
>  The most difficult part to discuss and decide upon now (and we are not
> yet aligned there and seem to be kind of touching it lightly so far) is the
> overarching mechanism to apply the powers. We identified: existing SO/AC
> structure, permanent CCWG, Statutory delegates or members, supervisory
> board. In his template 7A, Jordan introduces an additional one, "Community
> Council", and provides alternative proposals for its compilation.
>
>  The group of community representatives that vote on vetoing a board
> decision, intention, action, budget, removing the board etc (the group that
> administers the powers we identified) can –and should in my opinion- be the
> same for all those powers.
>  In Frankfurt we decided to identify the requirements first and then
> determine the best fitting mechanism.
>
>  We have the requirements (powers to be given to the community) largely,
> we are pretty much aligned on them. So we really have to start working on
> the mechanism to apply: what should the composition of the group (who
> should be in it, how do they get in: elected/appointed/ex officio, how do
> they get recalled) , how are positions mandated, decisions made and how do
> we fix al that in the bylaws. I am aware that we will need legal advice on
> that, but I don’t think that  we have to wait with everything for that.
>
>  And let’s make it as effective, simple and executable as possible. I
> noted again during the call yesterday, that quite a few of us (I admit, I
> am one of them) are in favor of the group (whatever it will be called in
> the end) be composed of SO and AC chairs. Although we should not limit
> ourselves to that, I submit that we should really explore that option.
>    Best,
>
>  Roelof
>
>   From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Date: woensdag 11 maart 2015 22:15
> To: "wp1 at icann.org" <wp1 at icann.org>
> Subject: [Party1] Accountability Mechanism Template WP-1-F | Community
> Veto Proposal
>
>   Attached please find the template completed for the proposal regarding
> a "community veto process".
>
> Improvements, clarifications, suggestions, etc. are most welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>


-- 

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150312/450b0a55/attachment-0001.html>