[CCWG-ACCT] Further thoughts on the "empowered SO/AC model" discussion on Friday

[Samantha Eisner]

Thanks Becky.

I see a reference in here to a requirement to use the IRP.  Under this model,should I understand this to mean that the place of enforcement – or where the member (or designator) would bring their claim – would be to the IRP?

Sam

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>
Date: Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 12:07 PM
To: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>
Cc: "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] Further thoughts on the "empowered SO/AC model" discussion on Friday

Becky,
Thank you for this, its excellent work.

At a high level this proposal seems like it could represent a well considered compromise between the various models that we have discussed over the past few months.
In concept I support it, as someone who was previously heavily invested in the membership model but I think this could be an acceptable compromise for me, and furthermore think that we should work to expedite work on the details so that the greater community can evaluate it in detail with each of our own individual wants and needs.

-James

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Jordan Carter
Date: Sunday 21 June 2015 11:47
To: "Burr, Becky"
Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>"
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Further thoughts on the "empowered SO/AC model" discussion on Friday

For those who prefer PDF... attached
J

On 21 June 2015 at 11:27, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>> wrote:
Dear All -

Over the past couple of days a number of us have been working to flesh out how an “empowered SO/AC model” could provide a path towards consensus.  The deck, attached, reflects a very preliminary, conceptual outline.   This is intended to ensure a better understanding of what is being proposed and to encourage discussion between and among CCWG-ACCT members.  Please review it in that light and share your thoughts to start a dialogue on the list.

Speaking personally, over the course of refining this proposal I have become more convinced that this hybrid approach provides the foundation for consensus that respects and addresses the very real and fervently held concerns that have been expressed about the various models we’ve discussed to date.


  *   The Empowered SO/AC structure is simple, easy, fast and flexible….and it provides a powerful tool to ensure that accountability reforms deferred to WS2 become a reality


  *   If we can get community consensus around the Empowered SO/AC structure, we’ll have no problem meeting the timeline for the transition….it actually allows us to confidently push off more complex and time-consuming questions to WS2.


  *   A key benefit of the Empowered SO/AC structure is its flexibility -- it allows all of the SOs and ACs  to take the time they need to decide how to engage. Governments get to keep their unique advisory status until such time they decide they want to exercise any of the six community powers.


  *   Another key benefit of the Empowered SO/AC model is that is preserves and protects the existing community structures. It reinforces the current SOs and ACs and relies on their built-in accountability mechanisms.


  *   The Empowered SO/AC model:



     *   does not require the SO/ACs to change their structures or change their existing mechanisms and decision-making procedures, etc.


     *   Permits each  SO and AC to decide – in its own time - whether it is comfortable with the voluntary/cooperative model or prefers to organize and enforce the community powers we’ve all agreed we want.


     *   reinforces the foundation of our existing community structure, and would only become relevant if/when all other accountability mechanisms are exhausted.


     *   would change nothing about the day-to-day operations of ICANN or the existing community structures and processes

A final, important note.  It appears that the same kind of mechanism could be used in the designator model context (again, with the limitations with respect to the budget and strat plan).  So to the extent that the designator model is still in play, most of the concepts we’ve laid out are applicable.

Best,

Becky

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932>  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>  / becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

_______________________________________________
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




--
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
InternetNZ

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Skype: jordancarter

A better world through a better Internet

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150621/1fac26a9/attachment.html>