<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Jordan,</div><div>THANK you very much for the message</div><div>First of all I do not really understand the meaning of the following </div><div>" <em>Using California's delegates or memberships system to vest these powers in members/delegates" </em></div><div><em>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</em></div><div><em>An an addition empoweringh community to even override that 4/5 DECISION ?</em></div><div><em>In addition, your text used the Trem" forcing " ..... why such a term is used , the community would exercise its empowerment but not forcing .</em></div><div><em>There would be no force . we are living in a democratic world without one could force the other.</em></div><div><em>Regards</em></div><div><em>Kavouss e</em></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-03-15 14:17 GMT+01:00 Mathieu Weill <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
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. <br>
<br>
See some comments inline : <br>
<br>
<div>Le 14/03/2015 05:08, Jordan Carter a
écrit :<br>
</div><span>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><b>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.</b>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
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...". <br><span>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>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:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>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.]<br>
<br>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
I support the idea, but would welcome some details of how we would
rate a specific option to be more effective than the other ? <br><span>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>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.]<br>
<br>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
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 ? <br><span>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>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.]<br>
<br>
</li>
<li>Simplicity of operation - what is the level of
attention and resource required from the community to
make the mechanism work?<br>
<br>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
Nice and useful distinction around the expected simplicity of our
proposals. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Accountability - how is the mechanism held accountable
to the stakeholders whose power it is designed to
enforce over ICANN?<br>
<br>
</li>
</ul>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>I am sure there are more, and welcome your additions to
the list and discussion of the whole subject.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Looking forward to your thoughts!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>best</div>
<div>Jordan</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br>
<br>
Chief Executive <br>
<b>InternetNZ</b><br>
<br>
04 495 2118 (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649" target="_blank" value="+6421442649">+64 21 442 649</a> (mob)<br>
<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>
Skype: jordancarter<br>
<br>
<i>A better world through a better Internet </i><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</span><pre>_______________________________________________
WP1 mailing list
<a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org" target="_blank">WP1@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></pre><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: <a href="tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006" target="_blank" value="+33139308306">+33 1 39 30 83 06</a>
<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
</pre>
</font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
WP1 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WP1@icann.org">WP1@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>