Oct. 17, 2015
10:29 a.m.
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: > Edit: >> Chattering organisations= Chartering organisations >> > > *I nominate this as "auto-correct of the week"!* > I hope that comes with some form of plaque :-) Cheers! > > 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 >> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!