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

Thu Mar 12 21:28:05 UTC 2015

Dear All,
Yes there are some evident criteria to address the issue of proportionality.
Instead of defending one and offending the ethers create an unhealthy 
Atmosphere. Instead let us to make valid reasoning and develop associated criteria
Regars
Kavouss. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 12 Mar 2015, at 21:11, <olivier.muron at orange.com> <olivier.muron at orange.com> wrote:
> 
> I fully agree with Greg: the GNSO represent the largest part of ICANN’s activities , the other supporting organizations like the ASO and the ccNSO only rely on ICANN for the overall level of policies (global policies), and for them most of the policy work is done at the regional or national level. Moreover the GNSO represents a very broad diversity of stakeholders, each with a very specific point of view on the issues handled by ICANN.
> 
> I think that the GNSO should benefit from a specific representation based on its constituencies, that fully represent the diversity of the stakeholders involved, and take into account the policy work done at ICANN level.
> 
> One should note that in Work Area 2 inventory of input from Public Comment, reference is made to a SO/AC Group where GNSO is indeed represented at the Constituency level.
> 
> Regards,
> Olivier
> 
> Le 12 mars 2015 à 18:51, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
>> 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
>> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> www.lawabel.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> WP1 mailing list
>> WP1 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> 
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150312/44cb40be/attachment.html>