[CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2

[Jonathan Zuck]

Well, I share your frustration on how this has all be handled, believe me. That said, we could narrow our stress tests, legal advice and assurances to making sure this is true.

From: avri doria [mailto:avri at ella.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 10:31 AM
To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at actonline.org>; Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au>
Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2

Hi,

I understand and used to believe that as well.


avri

Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

-------- Original message --------
From: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at actonline.org<mailto:JZuck at actonline.org>>
Date:09/29/2015 10:17 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: avri doria <avri at ella.com<mailto:avri at ella.com>>, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>>
Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2

Avri,
WS1 has always been about power and WS2 about implementation. WS1 was never going to be complete and, for that matter, WS2 won’t ever be complete either. That said, if we have the power to spill the board with relative ease, we can easily reconvene, flesh out the member model, submit it to the board and spill them if they aren’t constructive. We don’t need to worry about deadliens, the congress, NTIA, etc. the whole point of WS1 is to ensure the capability to do just this.

From: avri doria [mailto:avri at ella.com]
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 9:21 PM
To: Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>>; Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at actonline.org<mailto:JZuck at actonline.org>>
Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2

Hmm. An April 1 RFC as a model solution for our issues with the board. Might indeed be the right approach.

Or was that just by way of comment. For example an explanation of why putting things in ws2 is just silly and won't work.


avri

Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

-------- Original message --------
From: Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>>
Date:09/28/2015 8:42 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Jonathan Zuck <jzuck at actonline.org<mailto:jzuck at actonline.org>>
Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2

Thanks Jonathan.

I find RFC 1925 most instructive when dealing with circumstances such as the one we currently find ourselves in.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1925.txt


Cheers,



Chris

On 29 Sep 2015, at 09:29 , Jonathan Zuck <jzuck at actonline.org<mailto:jzuck at actonline.org>> wrote:

Here's a flyer. How about we make the determination that converting ICANN to a membership organization is a WS2 initiative and design a stress test for whatever we come up with in the interim that examines the community's ability to make this transformation post transition. With the right set of bylaws changes, the ability to spill the board, etc. we might be able to meet the WS1 requirements of "sufficient leverage to accomplish WS2." We could keep it pretty simple, eliminate the deadline, the NTIA, etc. and work towards a membership model over the following year and spill the board if they resist. I know that spilling the board is something we don't regard as practical leverage for some random policy decision but I think it's pretty credible for a restructuring. Thoughts?

Jonathan

_______________________________________________
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/20150929/baa0a1fb/attachment.html>