Among the problems with Membership is that there are strong indications
that several AC/SOs will not sign on as members (the ALAC is among them)
leaving the possibility of very few members, and those members (or quite
possibly member) would have the statutory power to unilaterally and
irreversibly dissolve the corporation, and the IANA Names stewardship
along with it.
You might ask, "Why would they do that?" and I have no clue.
But if we are determined to consider world with a rogue Board with not a
single Board member who is objecting, then a rogue SO cannot be off the
radar either.
Alan
At 06/07/2015 09:01 PM, you wrote:
Hello Avri,
- I believe membership raises the issues of accountability to the full
- diversity of stakeholders to a much higher threshold, including the
- issue of the degree to which ICANN is accountable to stakeholders
not
- included among our SG/C/RALO/ALS / as well as among parrticpating
CCs
- and govts.
Please, if possible, raise your concerns stating fact rather than belief.
Maybe there is something I have missed. There is absolutely no difference
in the openness to non ICANN stakeholders between the empowered
membership and empowered designator models. At least I don't see any.
Both are based upon the current SOAC's. If there is a difference in this
area I need to and want to be educated. Please respond with
specific and detailed instances or examples of why what you claim is true
is. Vague generalities are not particularly helpful. Again, I am open to
be educated and persuaded but with substantive fact rather than vague as
yet unsubstantiated beliefs.
No model is as open to non SOAC's as is Malcolm's proposal for individual
membership. That, again, is a membership model. Do you support this open
membership model and if not why not? Would you prefer other models to be
looked at that are not based upon the SOAC's? I think that would be a
very reasonable position and one I certainly am open to supporting if a
workable model would be proposed. As yet I have not seen one. Have you?
Should we try to find one?
- I think enough of the comments bring out questions of accountability
in
- a mebership organization to make the membership option less than
optimal.
What comments are you referring to? Certainly not the public comments
which were basically supportive of membership. Are these comments you
refer to based upon vague generalities or specific problems? If
there are specific problems what specifically are they? Should we not
determine whether there are solutions to those problems rather than just
dismissing the model outright? If not, what are your views as to the
ultimate apparent unenforceability of the designator model in certain
areas? Do you disagree with Paul Rosenzweig when he states that "a
direct community veto of budget and strategic plan remains essential to
accountability"? If not, what do you propose to do in these areas
without membership. Should we simply forget them?
I do think there may be another option or two out there and hopefully
working with our counsel we'll find them.
In the interim, I really am looking to be educated. No one has
taught me more about ICANN since I became involved in it than you Avri.
I'm just not easily persuadable by vague opinions, I'm a fact based sort
of guy. As this process has moved forward I've seen your views and
positions change. To me, that is an admirable sign of someone truly
looking for an optimal answer rather than one who is clinging to a
defined position. I'm just having some trouble understanding,
factually, the specific objections you are now raising about
membership. I hope you can help me understand so I can better test and
evaluate my own views..
Thanks,
Ed
- On 06-Jul-15 19:05, Edward Morris wrote:
- > +1. Well said.
- >
- >
- > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Jonathan Zuck
<JZuck@actonline.org
- >
<
mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>> wrote:
- >
- > Hmm. I think it’s important to bear in mind that there
was
- > overwhelming consensus among the public comments to
support the
- > membership model. The detractors from the model, while
important
- > and perhaps critical, are not in the majority. I’m not
sure this
- > process speaks to how we better use counsel as much as
how we
- > achieve consensus on principles.
- >
- >
- >
- >
- >
- >
- >
*From:*
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
- >
<
mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>
- >
[mailto:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
- >
<
mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On
- > Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji
- > *Sent:* Monday, July 6, 2015 3:50 PM
- > *To:* Becky Burr
- > *Cc:*
accountability-cross-community@icann.org
- >
<
mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
- > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers
and what
- > have they beenasked to do?
- >
- >
- >
- > Hi Becky,
- >
- > Thanks for asking, item 3 is actually in connection to
the fact
- > that such veto may not be possible without item 1(as I
understood
- > it) and that is why I said an indirect veto can happen
not that I
- > was entirely suggesting that those powers be off the
table.
- >
- > It seem however that folks are only looking at the
powers and not
- > at what it will take to have them.
- >
- > By the way, I also did put in a reservation that we may
not
- > necessarily agree with those views but my concern is
mainly that
- > the ccwg does not spend so much time developing
proposals that we
- > know has certain implementation requirements that are
not
- > compatible with the ICANN community structure. I think
we should
- > learn from the the past (based on comments from the last
PC) and
- > utilize legal council and volunteer hours more
effectively.
- >
- > FWIW speaking as participant.
- >
- > Regards
- >
- > On 6 Jul 2015 8:08 pm, "Burr, Becky"
<Becky.Burr@neustar.biz
- >
<
mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> wrote:
- >
- > Seun,
- >
- >
- >
- > I am not sure why we would
take direct budget/strat plan veto
- > off the table. Could
you explain? Thanks.
- >
- >
- >
- > Becky
- >
- > J. Beckwith Burr
- >
- > *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy
General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
- >
- > 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20006
- >
- > Office:
+ 1.202.533.2932
<tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile:
- >
+1.202.352.6367
- >
<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> /
becky.burr@neustar.biz
- >
<
mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> /
www.neustar.biz
- >
<
http://www.neustar.biz>
- >
- >
- >
- > *From: *Seun Ojedeji
<seun.ojedeji@gmail.com
- >
<
mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>
- > *Date: *Monday, July 6, 2015
at 11:09 AM
- > *To: *Robin Gross
<robin@ipjustice.org
- >
<
mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>
- > *Cc: *Accountability
Community
- >
<
accountability-cross-community@icann.org
- >
<
mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>
- > *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT]
Who is managing the lawyers and
- > what have they beenasked to
do?
- >
- >
- >
- > Hi,
- >
- > I have no problem with
having a new proposal presented.
- > However it is important that
there some adherence to basic
- > principles on proposals that
the ccwg would not want to
- > explore. Three areas comes
to mind:
- >
- > - Its my understanding that
anything that will turn some/all
- > of the SO/AC to members and
thereby exposing them to legal
- > challenge is not acceptable
- >
- > - Its my understanding that
anything that allows removal of
- > individual board member
without the approval of the entire(or
- > larger part) of the
community is not acceptable
- >
- > - Its my understanding that
a solution that allows direct
- > community veto on certain
elements like budget, strategic plan
- > et all is not acceptable but
an indirect enforcement could be
- > considered (i.e using a
power to get another power executed
- > indirectly)
- >
- >
- >
- > Some/none of the above may
be acceptable by us, but my point
- > is that there should be some
focus going forward, especially
- > if the target of ICANN54 is
to be meet
- >
- > Regards
- >
- >
- >
- >
- >
- > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 3:37
PM, Robin Gross
- >
<robin@ipjustice.org
<
mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote:
- >
- > I would also like to
hear what they propose at this
- > stage. I
really don't see how it could hurt to have
- > another proposal to
consider. Larry Strickling did say he
- > wanted us to be sure
we examined all the options carefully.
- >
- >
- >
- > Thanks,
- >
- > Robin
- >
- >
- >
- > On Jul 6, 2015, at
7:32 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
- >
- >
- >
- > I
agree. We should have the benefit of their thoughts.
- >
- >
- >
- >
Greg
- >
- >
- >
- > On
Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Jordan Carter
- >
<jordan@internetnz.net.nz
- >
<
mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
- >
- >
Well, I would really really like to see what the
- >
creative thinking they have done has suggested. I
- >
trust our ability as a group to make decisions,
- >
and do not believe we should cut off input from
- >
any direction...
- >
- >
- >
- >
Jordan
- >
- >
- >
- >
On 7 July 2015 at 01:13, James Gannon
- >
<james@cyberinvasion.net
- >
<
mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
- >
- >
Hey Avri,
- >
- >
- >
- >
Yes the 3rd model was brought up, and the
- >
lawyers feel that it might be a cleaner
way
- >
for us to get the powers that we need.
- >
- >
But without a call from the CCWG to
present it
- >
they feel that its not their position to
- >
propose a model on their own initiative.
- >
- >
- >
- >
Personally i would like to see what they
have
- >
come up with but the CCWG would need to
ask as
- >
an overall group for the chairs to direct
them
- >
to give some more information on the model
if
- >
we wanted it.
- >
- >
I think if after we hear from them on
Tuesdays
- >
call we still feel we might have some
- >
shortcomings that it might be the time to
ask
- >
them about the 3rd option.
- >
- >
- >
- >
Also +1 I think they are really enjoying
the
- >
work and are finding themselves getting
more
- >
and more involved as we go on, which is
great
- >
for the CCWG as the more background and
- >
details they know the better that are able
to
- >
give us solid well reasoned advice in my
opinion.
- >
- >
- >
- >
-James
- >
- >
- >
- >
- >
- >
On 6 Jul 2015, at 13:19, Avri
Doria
- >
<avri@acm.org
<mailto:avri@acm.org
>> wrote:
- >
- >
- >
- >
Hi,
- >
- >
I have not had a chance to get
back to the
- >
recording of the call.
Not
- >
sure I will, that time was the
time I had
- >
for that call and that is why
- >
i was listening then.
- >
- >
In any case, the lawyers were
talking
- >
about a new model they had come
up
- >
with, but not knowing what to do
about it
- >
since they had not been asked
- >
for a new model.
- >
- >
I was told to leave before I got
to hear
- >
the end of that story. Or about
- >
the model itself. Anyone who
has had a
- >
chance to listen, whatever
happened?
- >
- >
avri
- >
- >
ps. sometimes i think the lawyers
are
- >
getting interested in what we are
- >
doing, almost like stakeholders.
not that
- >
i expect them to give up their
- >
hourly rates because they are
stakeholders.
- >
- >
On 06-Jul-15 05:07, James Gannon
wrote: