Kavouss,
Are you sure you are replying to my mail????
What I said was: If I have to choose between the full membership
model and the sole member, I would prefer the sole member.
I also said that this doesn’t mean that the sole member is the
best model.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone: + 216 41 649 605
Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
Fax: + 216 70 853 376
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
De : Kavouss Arasteh
[mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com]
Envoyé : dimanche 4 octobre 2015 15:56
À : tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn
Cc : Bruce Tonkin; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Personal thoughts on sole member
Bruce
Thank
you much for your vision and thoughtful messages
You
are now becoming the most vocal Board Member in this regard for which I
personally thank you .
However,
It is difficult to really understand your position.
On
the one hand you severely and strongly supporting MEM
One other hand you have
referred to the advantages of multiple memberships versus sole membership.
These two ideas are not
compatible.
May you clarify your
position pls ?
Moreover, the multiple membership requires that each SO and Ac forms
an Unincorporated Association which was found very complex and
unimplementable that is why such approach was stopped in favour of MSM.
Do you suggest that CCWG
review its position again?
What we need to do is to
fully understand how MEM functions and ensure that it has a legal validity
1. re is a need
to fully
2
There is also a need to indicate in a flow chart7 diagram the stepwise
course of action to be taken as proposed in MEM
2.1
For petition in each SO and AC
2.2
The way that A given petition is executed and decided upon (voting together
with the associated threshold versus consensus, based on the procedure
currently applicable in each SO and AC)
2.3
The follow up actions on petition in Forum, including the participation at the
Forum
2.4
Formation of Issue Member Group
2.5
Composition of that Group
2.6
Decision making (voting together with the associated threshold versus
consensus)
2.7
Whether the decision is taken would need to be discussed in the Standing Panel
mentioned in the board proposal together with the size, composition and
threshold of decision making.
2.8 Which SO and which
Ac are decision making and which are advisory
3
Does the Board have a last word on the decision/ outcome of Issue Member Group?
If yes why?
4
Does the Issue Member Group has any fiduciary responsibility 7 authority?
5. What is the real
difference between MEM and MSM? If the difference relates to non-voting ability
of ACs? .Is the difference is that in MEM approach the implementation 7 binding
action of the decision is made is subject to the discretion of the Board?. If
yes, does it means that the community does not have a real power to impose its
decision to the Board?.
6
In the MEM, Board proposed that the outcome from petition and the outcome from
Issue Member Group IS valid ,if no advice received against it from an AC .
7
What is the relation between Standing Panel and Independent Review Panel/
Process?
8
.Don’t you believe that the Issue Group Member is some type of the Sole
Members
9
Having heard the views of CCWG in LA, does the Board have a way out to arrive
at an acceptable consensus? i.e. something between the MEM and MSM?
Regards
Kavouss
2015-10-04 13:50 GMT+02:00 Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn>:
Bruce,
You say you prefer a full membership model where each SO and AC
becomes a member rather than a sole membership model because it concentrates
all the powers in the hands of a single entity.
I don’t think it is the best way to avoid capture: In case we
have each SO and AC becoming a member, all those members will have the full
statutory rights and can at anytime exercise them including before the
Californian courts. The SOs or ACs that have a big interest (financial,
political, etc.) may use their member right to force the board to act for their
own narrow interest.
In the sole membership model, no power is allowed to a single SO
or AC; they can’t act separately. Any power exercise would be the result of the
community consensus (any form of consensus including voting). So no capture is
possible.
The only risk would be if all the community is not represented
in the sole member decision making, but this is the same risk for the full
membership model where you would have only some SO/AC becoming members of
ICANN.
I don’t say that the sole membership model is the best, but if I
compare it to the full membership model, I would prefer it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet
Associations (FMAI)
Phone: + 216 41 649 605
Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
Fax: + 216 70 853 376
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Message d'origine-----
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org]
De la part de Bruce Tonkin
Envoyé : samedi 3 octobre 2015 08:32
À : accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] Personal thoughts on sole member
Hello All,
The following is NOT a Board view.
My personal thoughts on sole member is that I prefer a broader membership
structure to a sole membership structure.
For me - a sole member concentrates all the responsibilities of membership
into a single legal entity. I much prefer more distributed membership
structures that are more likely to represent the broader Internet community.
I am not aware of any similar Internet based body that operates under this
model. I have been on the Board of several non-profit organizations
over the past 20 years in a range of areas from sport to research to business,
and I have never personally had any experience in this model.
I have also done several company director courses and I have never had this
model come up in presentations or discussions.
The sole member model also doesn't seem to particularly fit the current SOs
and ACs that often have different interests and areas of focus For
example SSAC and RRSAC have quite narrow mandates to look at particular
technical issues. They do not generally get involved in ICANN
strategic plans, operating plans, budgets, and naming policies.
I think it is far better that SOs and ACs participate in the ICANN model as
themselves. I think we can empower each of these groups in our
bylaws in appropriate ways.
If the CCWG really wants to go down the single member model, then I would
prefer a much more formal structure.
- make the single member an incorporated entity
- set the articles of incorporation up to ensure that the single
member has a fiduciary responsibility to the Internet community as a
whole. I.e. align its fiduciary responsibility to ICANN's fiduciary
responsibility
- have a board of the single member with the same structure as ICANN - with
SOs and ALAC appointing directors, set up a nominating committee (or use the
one we have) to select 8 directors, and have liaisons from GAC, SSAC, RSSAC and
IETF.
- include in its bylaws its mission (to be a member of ICANN), and processes
it will use to reach decisions and consult with the community
If this is sounding like what we already have - then that is not surprising.
I feel that it is certainly legally possible to create a sole member - but
it is practically highly unusual, and also seems completely unnecessary in that
we already have a Board that does much the same thing. The Board
listens to all parts of the community before making major decisions, and acts
for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole.
So vmy preference order is:
- leverage the governance model we have and refine to have additional powers
for the SOs and ACs in the bylaws, have a binding IRP mechanism if any SO or AC
feels that board is not following the bylaws, and set up a mechanism to
ensure that IRP decision is legally enforceable. This is broadly
the current Board proposal.
- move to a full membership model with appropriate diversification and
participation of members that include infrastructure operators and users, with
appropriate culture and geographical diversity
- use a sole member model - with a fully incorporated member and clear
fiduciary responsibilities. Set up the board of the sole member
with an equivalent level of governance as we have with the Board of ICANN.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
|
|
L'absence
de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel
antivirus Avast. |
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community