[CCWG-ACCT] member organization and single membership structure
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Jul 9 10:06:42 UTC 2015
Dear Roelof
Thank you for your useful thoughts and thoughts of those other colleagues
in exercising the inspection rights and other rights as mentioned
I need some clarification on your message in saying
Quote
*" But when it comes to recalling an individual board member or other
powers to be exercised by a single member, the single member model
raises substantial issues."*
Unquote
What do you mean by other powers? Apart from recalling individual Board,s
member what are those other powers from 7 powers that you categorized
*as raises
substantial issues?*
Regards
kavouss
2015-07-09 11:00 GMT+03:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>:
> +99
>
> On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
>
>> A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection".
>>
>> I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the
>> most useful of all possible accountability improvements.
>>
>> It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist
>> for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This
>> is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large
>> amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial
>> controls.
>>
>> (See: http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/)
>>
>> I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity
>> from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even
>> when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator
>> for why it should be a redline for the accountability group.
>>
>> To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of
>> actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on
>> embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone
>> gains.
>>
>>
>> Kieren
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Roelof:
>>
>> Derivative rights and the right of inspection are statutory rights
>> of members under California law. Under a multiple member model,
>> each member could choose to exercise these rights individually.
>> Under a single member model, only the single statutory member would
>> have these rights. Maybe this could be "fixed" so that individual
>> SOACs could exercise these rights in the name of the single member,
>> but I don't know if that works.
>>
>> If we don't care to have those rights (or any of the rights that
>> members have individually), then a single member set-up might work.
>> I would note that the right to inspect ICANN documents (currently
>> only available in a DIDP) has been an issue of concern. I would
>> also note that derivative rights are a powerful tool for enforcement
>> against an entity.
>>
>> I agree that when it comes to spilling the whole board, or other
>> powers intended to be exercised by the community as a whole,, the
>> single member model has the least issues vis a vis the multiple
>> member model. But when it comes to recalling an individual board
>> member or other powers to be exercised by a single member, the
>> single member model raises substantial issues.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Roelof Meijer
>> <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ed,
>>
>> Although I have no clue about what it actually means, I am quite
>> positive that “components of the community” .. “be[ing] able to
>> avail itself of derivative rights or the right of inspection” is
>> not a requirement that we formulated as a power, nor a criterium
>> we formulated for the selection of a mechanism. So I am at a bit
>> of a loss where that comes from.
>>
>> Additionally, I do not see why stakeholders represented “in a
>> single tent” requiring a specified majority among those
>> representatives to execute a specific power (let’s say spilling
>> the board) would have less vitality and more blob, than
>> stakeholders in separate legal entities equally requiring the
>> same specified majority among those entities to execute a
>> specific power.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Roelof
>>
>> From: Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>
>> Date: woensdag 22 april 2015 16:24
>> To: Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
>> Cc: Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer at sidn.nl
>> <mailto:roelof.meijer at sidn.nl>>, "avri at acm.org
>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>" <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>,
>> "accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>"
>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] member organization and single
>> membership structure
>>
>> I look forward to independent counsel's analysis of this proposal.
>>
>> Certainly my principle objection with this model is the
>> nullification of many of the benefits membership would bring to
>> components of the community. If the GNSO, for example, felt
>> strongly about an issue it would not be able to avail itself of
>> derivative rights or the right of inspection without the consent
>> of the greater community. Diversity is the strength of the
>> multistakeholder model and folding all rights into a single tent
>> would dampen the vitality of the diverse bottom up process and
>> instead submerge it into a giant blob like unit.
>>
>> I do remain open, though, to others thoughts on the matter and
>> thank Roelof for bringing it up.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Apr 22, 2015, at 3:02 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org
>> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If this would achieve the same result as the broader
>>> membership model and at the same time be simpler to implement
>>> shouldn't it be looked at again? Was there a specific reason
>>> it was discounted?
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>> On 4/22/2015 2:56 PM, Roelof Meijer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>>
>>>> The sole membership construction, is a possibility described
>>>> in the legal document in several places: the comments by the
>>>> legal experts on the PCCWG mechanism template (page 64) and
>>>> the Community Council mechanism template (page 69). I sent
>>>> several emails about it to the WP1 list, suggesting to look
>>>> in the possibility as indeed it would not necessitate every
>>>> SO and AC to become a legal entity. And, as you do,
>>>> suggesting: "make the „Community Council” the sole member of
>>>> ICANN (and thus a formal legal entity), consisting of either
>>>> the SO and AC chairs or SO/AC elected representatives” (from
>>>> an email of 14 April).
>>>>
>>>> And I would think it would enable the SO’s and AC’s
>>>> themselves to continue appointing directors, as they do now.
>>>> But that’s just guessing, based on the fact that the SO’s and
>>>> AC’s themselves would not change status
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Roelof
>>>>
>>>> From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>
>>>> Organization: Technicalities
>>>> Reply-To: "avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>" <avri at acm.org
>>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>
>>>> Date: woensdag 22 april 2015 15:09
>>>> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>"
>>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] member organization and single
>>>> membership structure
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 22-Apr-15 08:26, Roelof Meijer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2)
>>>>> What I find quite frustrating is that I have raised the
>>>>> point of the possibility (or not) of a single membership
>>>>> structure – an option mentioned by Sidley and Adler &
>>>>> Colving in their legal advice – several times by now without
>>>>> getting any substantial reaction. I am not aware that any
>>>>> serious effort to investigate this has led to a formal
>>>>> write-off.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In some way that might lessen the complexity of making most
>>>> SOAC an individual legal entity.
>>>>
>>>> How would it work? Would we continue to appoint Directors
>>>> just as we do now?
>>>>
>>>> Or would there need to be some sort of Members Council that
>>>> took actions, working simliarly to the the executive board or
>>>> community council idea?
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
>>>>
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>>> software.
>>>> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>> + 44 (0)771 247 2987 <tel:%2B%2044%20%280%29771%20247%202987>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150709/ebed98b4/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list