[WP1] [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Staff] There is no consensus on the role of Advisory Committees according to our own public comment paper which analyzed public comment

Wed Oct 21 09:29:01 UTC 2015

This is not a "new diverting point".  Our very own public comment analysis document says there is no consensus on this issue and it needs to be explored.  See below from our analysis.

When will that discussion happen?

Thanks,
Robin

CMSM 

Areas of Concern/Divergence

Lack of consensus on whether the community should take decisions through formal voting or through establishing consensus.

Lack of consensus on the voting allocations between SOs and ACs.  Comments expressed concern for “dilution and authority and influence of SO community”. Most commenters on this      issue expressed support for voting allocations along the lines of ICANN’s existing board structure.

Lack of consensus on the composition of the community within the Model (e.g. role of Advisory Committees). Comments indicated concern over the possible “duality” of the governmental role in the Model. Several comments expressed concern that providing votes to GAC will fail to meet NTIA requirements.

Comments expressed concern over the extent of changes required in ICANN’s structure with the model.

Proposal that enforceability for narrowed community powers could be provided for by binding arbitration to enforce fundamental bylaws, instead of the CMSM Model.

Options for CCWG Consideration

1.    Continue to evolve SMM to address specific points of concern raised in public comment, while maintaining “membership” model.

2.    Explore how maximum legal enforcement can be achieved for desired community powers under an empowered designator model for comparison.

Sub-Issues within the Models:

Single Member and Single Designator Models
a.    Voting or consensus basis;

                                 i.         Move away from “voting” and towards “consensus” for decision-making purposes within the community mechanism.

                                ii.         Consider community powers only may be exercised by the community as a whole, based on consensus or near consensus of the whole of it.

                              iii.         Consider option of consensus definition depending on absence of recommendations or advice against when using community powers.

                               iv.         Consider option of consensus definition depending on absence of recommendations or advice against.

b.    Reconsider role of the ACs in the Model’s community forum.  Should some ACs be non-voting / decisional and rather, advisory only?

c.     Reconsider voting allocations between SOs-ACs to be more in-line with balance of appointments to ICANN board.

d.    Consideration of advice from those SOs and ACs opting out of the decision-making mechanism;•

e.    Maintaining balance of power to prevent capture of/by those opting-in to the decision-making mechanism;•

f.      Factoring in conflicts of interest and fiduciary or other responsibilities (such as public interest) into the decision-making design;•

g.    Ensuring accountability of the new structure to the broader community and the global public interest.

On Oct 21, 2015, at 2:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

> Dear All,
> There is no intention to provide voting power to ACs .What we discussing is that they continue to provide advice in favour or against a given issue that advice is understood to be given after reaching consensus .
> I do not understand some colleagues attempting to  bring new diverting points
> Let us to find out how we could bring ourselves closer to each other.
> This type of comments do not help
> Regards
> Kavouss  
> 
> 2015-10-21 11:14 GMT+02:00 Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>:
> Robin’s email is the same as always. We are looking into the issue. 
> 
> From: <acct-staff-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse at gmail.com>
> Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 9:59 AM
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
> Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff at icann.org>, "wp1 at icann.org" <wp1 at icann.org>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Acct-Staff] [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] There is no consensus on the role of Advisory Committees according to our own public comment paper which analyzed public comment
> 
> Didn't she weite she used a different email address?
> 
> el
> 
> --
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
> 
> On 21 Oct 2015, 09:57 +0100, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>, wrote:
>> Staff,
>> 
>> Can you please check why some emails are not getting to the list?
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> 
>> León
>> 
>>> El 21/10/2015, a las 9:52 a.m., Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> escribió:
>>> 
>>> Resending, since my email is NOT posting to the list:
>>> 
>>> [...]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20151021/6bceeb88/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20151021/6bceeb88/signature-0001.asc>