[CCWG-ACCT] Townhall meeting follow-up

Mon Jun 22 22:12:28 UTC 2015

Jordan, all,

The “empowered SOs/Acs model” allows for enforcement of 6/6 powers if it "escalates into" the membership model
We should also consider the alternative option: making the designator model the escalation path.
ICANN would then not have to prepare to move to a membership model. Escalation into designator model would allow enforcement of 4/6 powers. Removing the board of part thereof is among them. Vetoing the budget is not.

I would like to submit the following for consideration:
If the community, in line with the power given to it in ICANN’s (new) bylaws and the designed process, vetoes the budget and the board ignores that veto, what would be the best next step? Taking the board to court to have the budget vetoed and redone? Or removing (part of) the board?
I would think the latter, as by ignoring the community’s veto of the budget (as the outcome of due process that the board agreed to in the first place), such a board completely loses the trust and confidence of the community and can no longer function.

So I suggest that, under the “empowered SOs/ACs model”, the possibility to legally enforce ONLY the power to remove (part of) the board would suffice. Legal enforcement of one or more of the other powers would simply never be used, unless combined with removal of the board

Best,

Roelof Meijer

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>
Date: maandag 22 juni 2015 16:08
To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>
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] Townhall meeting follow-up

Hi Seun, all:

On 22/06/2015, at 3:55 pm, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto: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. For designator or member you need some kind of “legal person”.

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 :-)

J

Regards

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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-Ekiti
web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/>
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: <http://goog_1872880453/> seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng<mailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/>
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: <http://goog_1872880453/> seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng<mailto: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<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/20150622/95ae6207/attachment.html>