[CCWG-ACCT] Townhall meeting follow-up

Mon Jun 22 19:41:31 UTC 2015

Hi Jordan,

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
wrote:

> Hi Seun, all:
>
> On 22/06/2015, at 3:55 pm, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Kavouss,
>
> While i agree that its good we get further clarity on the "Empowered SO/AC
> model", i think we have the overall high level characteristics of the model
> and it may be good to consider other-ways to "enforceability" other than
> formalising the SO/AC as well.
>
>
> I think the advice we have received is that designator approach in the
> legal sense could allow for enforcement of 4/6 powers, membership approach
> 6/6, and voluntary approach 0/6.
>

This is a useful comparison Jordan and i think we need to strike some
distinction on the type of enforcement. I will assume what was considered
above is direct enforcement from the community, there is also the direct
enforcement by the bylaw (which would have been put in place by the
community). If we look at enforcement as board members complying with the
organisation bylaw then the current score of the so-called "voluntary
approach" could change significantly. I call it so-called voluntary
approach because i think its in practice beyond voluntary for board
members. Their accepting to be board members should technically mean they
are bound to abide by the organisation bylaw.

> For designator or member you need some kind of “legal person”.
>

On the designator option i think there may be need to re-question the legal
team on this. ARIN recently received some legal advice on possibility of
NRO becoming a designate/member within ICANN[1] and it does seem an
interesting read. I quote the specific section below:

"Designators are simply those parties provided in a corporation’s articles
> or bylaws as having the power to appoint some or all of the corporation’s
> directors"
>

So i don't really understand the idea of "legal person" requirement as
indicated by the ccwg legal team, perhaps they need to clarify. That said,
this is not to indicate a preference at the moment but to ensure we get
clarity on what is possible and what isn't in all these models

>
> If there are other paths to enforceability I would be interested to know
> what they are - does anybody know of any?
>
>
> I for one like the empowered SO/AC model as its really an improvement to
> the full membership model and less complicated (seem to be an advanced
> designator model). Nevertheless there is still the reality that its a
> members model and there are cons associated with this and it may be good to
> put them side by side with the current "voluntary model" that operates an
> "Empowered bylaw" post-transition  (yeah empowered seem to be the buzz word
> lately ;-) )
>
>
> This is a beast I have never heard of, an empowered bylaw :-)
>

Actually that is me giving a funky title to the ccwg proposed bylaw changes
as i see it as enhancement of community engagement in ICANN board decision
making process.

Regards
1.
https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/ARIN-Memo-re-NRO-Status-as-an-Unincorporated-Association.pdf

>
> J
>
>
> Regards
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <
> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>> First of all ,let us wait for a clear way forward to be on the Table be
>> fore our next meeting on Wednesday
>> Secondly, if we clearly distinguish between rights to participate to
>> voting of any or all of the six/seven powers as well as  issues relying to
>> IRP FROM issue of empowerment ,requiring membership ( at least one member
>> to have a stand for enforce certain decisions /conclusion made through
>> voting ,many questions would be narrowed down to fewer numbers .
>> Pls kindly advise on that
>> Kavouss
>>
>> 2015-06-22 18:52 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> First i like to thank the Co-Chairs for responding to all the questions
>>> during the townhall meeting. Milton mentioned 2 things and i like to use
>>> that to provide my feedback/suggestions:
>>>
>>> - Purpose of the CCWG:
>>>
>>> IMO, i think the purpose of the CCWG is to recommend ways to improve
>>> ICANN accountability but enforceability could just be one of such features
>>> and not the ultimate goal.
>>>
>>> - Enforceability solutions other than membership:
>>> Considering the complications relating to the various membership models
>>> that has been suggested, there is obvious need to consider what is
>>> achievable within the current structure and i think everything is
>>> achievable except enforceability. Puting that in mind, i think the CCWG
>>> report in summary has provided the following (amongst others):
>>>
>>> - They have looked into the current bylaw and proposed edits that would
>>> ensure community engagement in the board decision making process which is
>>> not existing at the moment
>>> - They have proposed ways by which the suggested edits to the bylaw once
>>> implemented can be updated (fundamental bylaw)
>>>
>>> I think these 2 items are critical accountability enhancement and once
>>> implemented would have provided ICANN board with some specific guideline on
>>> how to approach issues as accordingly.
>>>
>>> So it seem to me that we will already have some enforceability without
>>> actually requiring membership since an organisation board is required to
>>> obey/comply with its bylaw. So if the bylaw says; before you can do xyz, it
>>> needs to go through abc process, why would the board not follow/obey those
>>> direction as defined in the bylaw?
>>>
>>> As a follow-up to my question about ICANN board complying with its
>>> bylaw. I will like to ask the following questions:
>>>
>>> - Has there been any known scenario where ICANN board at the moment did
>>> not obey its current bylaw?
>>> - If ICANN board does not obey its bylaw, what its legal implication to
>>> the board members with regards to their mandate?
>>> - Is it possible for board members to sign a mandate upon induction
>>> indicating that they would resign if the community (through a defined
>>> process) determined that they did not follow the organisation's bylaw?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
>>>   http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/>Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
>>> email:  <http://goog_1872880453/>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>>> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>>>
>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
>   http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/>Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
> email:  <http://goog_1872880453/>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150622/42c3e421/attachment.html>