Oct. 17, 2015
9:56 a.m.
> > Edit: > Chattering organisations= Chartering organisations > *I nominate this as "auto-correct of the week"!* On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: > Edit: > Chattering organisations= Chartering organisations > > Pardon my swype texting predictions > > Cheers! > > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 17 Oct 2015 07:42, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 >> Kindly excuse brevity and typos. >> On 17 Oct 2015 04:38, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> wrote: >> > >> > Dear all, >> > >> > >> > >> > If the group ends up focusing on Sole Designator as the “candidate way >> forward”, it seems to me that this can only be a result of Board input >> since the majority of public comment supported the Sole Member. >> > >> >> SO: I don't think your rationale here is accurate even though I don't see >> anything wrong in it if it were the case. I say this because board some >> time ago said they don't believe SD remove their concern. Secondly, the 2 >> PC ran by the CCWG has been about member model so it's not appropriate to >> conclude what model option the PC supported when it only had an option to >> comment on. >> >> > >> > 1. Based on public comment and the Sidley legal advice, the CCWG >> should issue a Supplemental Report keeping the Sole Member model but >> specifying that the exercise of all the Community Powers must be >> accompanied by unanimous consent of all participating SOs and ACs and that >> no SO or AC objects even if not participating in the Sole Member consensus >> call. >> > >> >> SO: This somewhat is not in sync with what you already stated about >> moving from SM to SD; you seem to be suggesting that the shift doesn't >> happen because unanimous consent will be expected norm for any model. >> >> > 2. For certain extreme Community Powers, e.g. dissolution of the >> corporation, specify that community enforcement may not be commenced except >> by being triggered as the result of a Board resolution. (Per Sidley, this >> has to be fixed anyway since the current ByLaws would permit a majority >> vote of 5 out of a quorum of 9 directors present to dissolve the >> corporation and that is just silly.) >> > >> SO: +1 to this, in addition (even though it's may be obvious), the >> process though triggered by board must not be concluded by board >> unilaterally. >> >> > 3. Some SOs and ACs may not agree with the Supplemental Report >> and will note their disagreement on the record, citing the fiduciary >> responsibilities of the Board and their confidence in the Board and the >> desire to change as little as possible. >> > >> >> SO: I believe the CCWG requires agreement of all chattering organisation. >> I expect that minority views are allowed but so long as they all sum up to >> support then I guess we should be fine. Nevertheless, your statement above >> is still somewhat inconsistent with the premise your started with. >> >> > 4. Some SOs and ACs will support the Supplemental Report citing >> the MSM and citing the CWG-Stewardship conditions related to strong >> Community Powers. >> > >> SO: This seem like prediction so I don't have comments on this. >> >> > 5. There will be a very short public comment period on the >> Supplemental Report because not a lot has changed from the Second Draft >> Report. What has changed is how consensus is developed (not via voting but >> via consensus call) and that consensus is specified to be unanimous. What >> has also changed is that some community powers, e.g. dissolution, cannot be >> invoked without first being triggered by a Board resolution. (See the >> Sidley memo on how to limit powers of the member to address risks >> identified by the Board.) >> > >> > 6. The Board will consider the Supplemental Report and the CCWG >> Charter provision will kick in which requires 2/3 majority of the Board to >> reject and then a formal dialogue phase kicks in but at least you have >> followed the MSM public comment procedure and you have followed the >> CWG-Stewardship Final Report requirements. The Board cites its fiduciary >> duty, its concerns about SO/AC Accountability and various public comments >> received and solicited in Dublin in open sessions. >> > >> SO: I think it will be good to check what the charter says about how >> board considers the CCWG report. I don't get why you are predicting what >> different parties will do but I guess you know why. >> >> > 7. After the Board votes by 2/3 majority to reject the CMSM, the >> dialogue “begins” and the Community modifies the enforcement model to Sole >> Designator. CWG-Stewardship goes back to modify its Final Report in light >> of formal Board input and expresses the opinion that the Sole Designator >> model meets the accountability requirements it has recommended with respect >> to the IANA transition. >> > >> >> SO: There is no need to go through that route, whatever comes out as the >> outcome of the CCWG here in Dublin should be available to CWG to analyse >> against her requirements. >> >> > 8. When Sole Designator is presented to NTIA, no one is able to >> say that the CCWG changed its model based solely on Board pressure alone. >> All proper procedures in the MSM and in the Charter have been followed. >> > >> SO: Hmm... Well the report is not the only thing to be submitted to NTIA, >> the process taken is part of it and NTIA is participating in this process >> as well. Whatever is the outcome of this process has to be owned and taken >> responsibility of by the entire community (including board and CCWG). There >> is no need for hand washing in this process because all hands are >> literarily dirty. There is however need to collectively agree that what >> comes out is generally workable and practically takes up more steps further >> in the community accountability process (including that of board, staff and >> SO/AC) >> >> Regards >> > T >> > >> > The above hopefully does not telescope the outcome of the work of the >> group. I am likely known at this point as favoring the CMSM. Nonetheless, >> it has been reported to me that at Friday’s sessions, the Chairs were >> observing that the group faces certain practical challenges. If these >> practical challenges “rule the day”, then I believe it would be best to >> follow the above procedure in order to avoid certain difficulties that >> could arise down the road after NTIA certification of the transition >> proposal to Congress. >> > >> > >> > >> > Anne >> > >> > >> > >> > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel >> > >> > Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP >> > >> > One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 >> > >> > (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 >> > >> > AAikman@lrrlaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: >> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan >> Carter >> > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 2:48 PM >> > To: Malcolm Hutty >> > Cc: Accountability Cross Community >> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] For Enforcement Model small group on Saturday >> - Tables & Plan B slides >> > >> > >> > >> > Same place as today all - and an 8.30am start >> > >> > >> > >> > Jordan >> > >> > On Friday, 16 October 2015, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote: >> > >> > Thank you Jordan. >> > >> > >> > >> > Please could you (or staff, or someone) confirm start time (8:30?) and >> particularly, which room for each meeting. >> > >> > >> > >> > Thank you. >> > >> > Sent from my iPhone >> > >> > >> > On 16 Oct 2015, at 18:13, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi everyone >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> One of the small grounds meeting tomorrow is to deal with the >> Enforcement Model. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> We anticipate the group will probably be asked to focus on testing the >> two central models (Single Member and Single Designator) with a focus on >> the two powers that attracted most discussion this morning. That is: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - separation review outcomes >> >> >> >> - IRP >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The attached documents essentially include the output the lawyers were >> tasked with with "Plan B", too. They are as follows: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - summary table of enforcement issues under all four models (status >> quo, MEM, Single Designator, Single Member) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - the full detailed table of enforcement issues under all four models >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - a "three column" table that is the summary, just for Single >> Designator and Single Member (the most useful working doc to look at) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - a powerpoint set of slides that details other aspects of the "Plan >> B" which is Single Designator plus a governance review. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I encourage those interested in these issues to look at these >> documents, whether or not you can or will attend the small group session. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> best, >> >> >> >> Jordan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <Summary Comparison of Enforcement Mechanisms by Model - Final >> (00723591x....pdf> >> >> >> >> <Comparison of Enforcement Mechanisms by Model- Final >> (00723592xA3536).pdf> >> >> >> >> <3 COLUMN Summary Comparison of Enforcement Mechanisms (Sole >> Designator &....pdf> >> >> >> >> <CCWG Slides--Community Powers with Opportunity for Future Governance >> Rev....pdf> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> >> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Jordan Carter >> > Chief Executive, InternetNZ >> > >> > +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz >> > >> > Sent on the run, apologies for brevity >> > >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > >> > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the >> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this >> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or >> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended >> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or >> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you >> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by >> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any >> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and >> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the >> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >