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

Sun Jun 21 17:54:14 UTC 2015

Thanks, Becky, excellent. Still looks very promising!

Cheers,

Roelof

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Becky Burr <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>
Date: zondag 21 juni 2015 14:45
To: Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>>
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

Taking a stab at answering Roelof’s questions in blue font below
J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz

From: Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>>
Date: Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 1:17 PM
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>
Cc: Accountability Community <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

I’d just like to add my thanks to Becky and echo those who have said that this looks promising indeed. Much fleshing out to be done and doubtless many as yet unanswered questions but promising nonetheless.

Cheers,

Chris

On 22 Jun 2015, at 02:03 , Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>> wrote:

Hi Becky,

This sure looks very promising, almost to good to be true.

Just to make sure that I understand correctly:

"A simple statement of intent to do so confers the legal status (personhood) needed to enforce recommended powers and authorities"

With that statement, would the SO or AC in question now qualify as a UA? Is that the intention?  I think we have gotten wrapped around a short hand on the UA stuff.  The bottom line is that to have ultimate enforcement authority as a member you must have “personhood” - either natural or legal.  The requirement for this status in this situation is the declared intention to exercise membership rights.  The declaration gives you the necessary status– in  some jurisdictions you might be called an “unincorporated association” but it might be something else in Switzerland or Argentina or anywhere else on the planet.  The bottom line is by making a declaration of intent you qualify as a legal person under the statute

"Take the steps necessary to admit members under applicable law in the event any SO or AC elects to declare its intent to work collectively to exercise or enforce authority granted in the Bylaws"

I understood from legal counsel during our session last Friday, that such a “statement of intent” would have to be issued before any situation in which the SO or AC would file for enforcement of powers, occurs.
So we should probably expect certain SO’s/AC’s to file those statements when it becomes possible, having  as a result that ICANN would become a membership organization, is that right?  Again, this is not my area of expertise but it is my impression that you would need to act (make the declaration) before the harm occurs.  So, it probably is not necessary to file immediately, and my distinct sense is that the SOs and ACs would welcome additional time to consider their options.  In a worst case scenario, the Board would have “one free bite” at the bad behavior apple, and even that provides meaningful disincentives for such behavior.

Cheers,

Roelof

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Becky Burr <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>
Date: zondag 21 juni 2015 11:27
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: [CCWG-ACCT] Further thoughts on the "empowered SO/AC model" discussion on Friday

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  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150621/761769c7/attachment.html>