[CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem

[Arun Sukumar]

Dear Bruce,

To bring us back to Jordan's initial suggestion, if the Board were to play
some role in the Single Member model - with the form of decision-making and
areas of decision making clearly specified -- what would the Board's take
be? Would it still oppose the SMCM?

Arun

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Bruce Tonkin <
Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

> Hello Keith,
>
> That is a good summary of some of the issues that have been discussed by
> Board members.
>
> When I get some time over the weekend - I will post some relevant extracts
> from the Board's public comments, and also offer some of my own personal
> thoughts on the single member model.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek,
> Keith
> Sent: Thursday, 1 October 2015 3:16 AM
> To: Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>;
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do
> Anything!' problem
>
> Thanks Nigel.
>
> In no particular  order, my interpretation of the Board's written
> comments, what we heard in Los Angeles and from Fadi yesterday is:
>
> -- Introducing a different governance structure, i.e. membership, is new,
> untested, and cannot be proven to resist capture in the limited time
> available to meet the September 2016 date.
>
> -- Shifting authority from the Board to an untested membership body is
> potentially destabilizing and will be difficult or impossible to sell as
> not introducing risk at a delicate time.
>
> -- If we're going to shift authority, we must also shift a commensurate
> level of accountability, and the current SOs and ACs do not have sufficient
> accountability at this time.
>
> -- ICANN and its SOs/ACs need to be safe from capture from outside and
> from within; empowering the SOs and ACs without clear safeguards is
> problematic.
>
> -- Concentrating power in a new "sole membership" body is not balanced if
> it doesn't include all community members, and two groups (SSAC and RSSAC)
> have said they want to remain advisory.
>
> -- Shifting from consensus-based decision-making to reliance on a voting
> structure is not consistent with the multi-stakeholder model.
>
> -- The CCWG recommendation is too complex and difficult to
> explain/understand, so we need to make smaller, incremental changes that
> are more easily implemented and understood.
>
> -- A recommendation requiring a substantial governance restructuring will
> suggest that ICANN is currently broken -- a politically risky message going
> into the transition.
>
> I'm obviously not in a position to speak for the Board, but that's my
> non-legalistic reading of the concerns.  I'd be happy to be corrected if my
> interpretation is off-base.
>
> That was a reply to your question (a).  I can't respond to question (b).
>
> Regards,
> Keith
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>



-- 
-
@arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar>
Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org>
National Law University, New Delhi
Ph: +91-9871943272
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151001/9e9d707b/attachment.html>