Hello All, I have been asked a few times for the Board's view on the single member model. The only written response on that topic that has been reviewed by the Board, is the statement we made in our public comments. See below. The Board has not discussed what changes to the sole member model would be required for it to be acceptable. The current position is the Board has put forward its suggestions for implementing the community powers for consideration and was waiting to see how the CCWG responded to those suggestions amongst other suggestions in the public comment process. If after reviewing all the public comments, and further discussions on the topic via the mailing list and WP calls, the CCWG still wants to proceed with a single member model, then the Board would then need to meet again to review its position. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
From section 35: Sole Member Model:
The ICANN Board does not support this proposal. While the Board is supportive of a change in the balance of power among the community and the Board on operational matters, and agrees with the CCWG-Accountability Proposal elements that enhance those community powers, the Board believes that a Sole Member Model may introduce too much change and may lead to a delay in the IANA Stewardship Transition until that model has been working in practice. We refer to the other documents in our public comment for further detail. There is great value in, and the Board agrees in principle with, the process of petitioning, discussion and decision among the multistakeholder community to achieve the community powers. To support and enforce the new community powers that are proposed within the CCWG-Accountability Proposal, the ICANN Board proposes for consideration an alternative called the Multistakeholder Enforcement Mechanism (MEM) that leverages the ICANN's existing governance structure as well as the existing structure of SOs and ACs within ICANN. The MEM ensures that that the community has access to binding arbitration to enforce the new community powers, without requiring the formation of a member or a community voting mechanism. The binding arbitration will be enforceable under the laws of the State of California, and other courts as appropriate. Please see the MEM summary and FAQ for more details. The Board's approach relies on the broader SO and AC multistakeholder model to reach ultimate decisions to influence operational matters, as opposed to the collection of whatever grouping of SOs or ACs that happen to be part of (or are eligible to be part of) the Sole Member at a particular time. This provides simplicity as well as predictability on the scope of the community that is able to take these decisions at any time.