[WP1] [Party1] For discussion - criteria to select preferred mechanisms

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Jordan,
THANK you very much for the message
First of all I do not really understand the meaning of the following
" *Using California's delegates or memberships system to vest these powers
in members/delegates" *
*Moreover, one simple  way would be to modify bylaws by including a) a 4/5
voting criteria if ICANN bOARD dECIDES TO MODIFY THE BYLAWS*
*An an addition empoweringh community to even override that 4/5 DECISION ?*
*In addition, your text used the Trem" forcing " ..... why such a term is
used , the community would exercise its empowerment but not forcing .*
*There would be no force . we are living in a democratic world without one
could force the other.*
*Regards*
*Kavouss e*


2015-03-15 14:17 GMT+01:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>:

>  Thanks Jordan for setting up this discussion. It is one we need to carry
> to the whole group I believe, considering the upcoming meeting in Istanbul.
> I will try to circulate a consolidated draft before our call on Tuesday.
>
> See some comments inline :
>
> Le 14/03/2015 05:08, Jordan Carter a écrit :
>
> *I think it would be valuable to work out some criteria to help establish
> our preferred mechanism - both in terms of the process/structure divide and
> within those too.*
>
>   We should bear in mind that the question will be about comparing
> options, so our questions will be of the kind "which option would be
> more...".
>
>  Here are some that come to mind - above and beyond the stress-tests,
> which will help, and above and beyond the matters set out in our definition
> and scope document:
>
>    - Legal effectiveness - how operable or entrenched would the
>    community's new powers be? [We can't choose a mechanism that isn't
>    effective, in my opinion.]
>
>
>   I support the idea, but would welcome some details of how we would rate
> a specific option to be more effective than the other ?
>
>
>    - Decisionmaking quality - what impact will the mechanism's
>    construction have on quality of decisionmaking? [This could be quite
>    subjective but does need to be considered.]
>
>
>   I believe we can avoid most of the subjectivity by relying on the
> qualities of accountability mechanisms : checks and balances and
> independence seem quite relevant here. There might also be an aspect of
> skillsets of decision makers ?
>
>
>    - Simplicity of design - what is the level of simplicity to implement
>    and to explain, internally and externally? [We have a consensus that
>    simpler is preferable, so far as I can tell.]
>
>     - Simplicity of operation - what is the level of attention and
>    resource required from the community to make the mechanism work?
>
>
>   Nice and useful distinction around the expected simplicity of our
> proposals.
>
>
>    - Accountability - how is the mechanism held accountable to the
>    stakeholders whose power it is designed to enforce over ICANN?
>
>
>
>  I am sure there are more, and welcome your additions to the list and
> discussion of the whole subject.
>
>  I'd like to build off that conversation by starting a table that sets
> out some of the aspects of each model based on these criteria and the
> others that come up, so as to pull all the key information into one place
> for debate in Istanbul. I'll start working on that tomorrow.
>
>  Looking forward to your thoughts!
>
>
>  best
> Jordan
>
>
>  --
>   Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> *A better world through a better Internet *
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing listWP1 at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>
> --
> *****************************
> Mathieu WEILL
> AFNIC - directeur général
> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
> *****************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150315/9ebe419b/attachment.html>