For Enforcement Model small group on Saturday - Tables & Plan B slides
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
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
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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
Dear all, I am uncertain of being able to attend this group due to Chairing the meeting of GNSO SCI from 8 to 9 and then reporting to GNSO for that same Group from 9:15 to 9:30. I do have one observation, however, which is purely procedural in nature. (SCI people just love procedure.) 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. Accordingly, if the practical reality of wanting a timely transition combined with the Board’s statement it will not support Sole Member is leading us to a required compromise, then I think the proper procedure which will best serve everyone long term in this situation could be as follows: 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. 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.) 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. 4. Some SOs and ACs will support the Supplemental Report citing the MSM and citing the CWG-Stewardship conditions related to strong Community Powers. 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. 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. 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. 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 [cid:image001.gif@01D10851.B53FB740] 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<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://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<mailto: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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<mailto: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.
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
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
> > 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 > >
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!
I think there was a better one . . . Wait, probably that one /wasn't/ an autocorrect failure. On 17/10/15 10:56, Greg Shatan wrote:
Edit: Chattering organisations= Chartering organisations
*I nominate this as "auto-correct of the week"!*
participants (6)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Greg Shatan -
Jordan Carter -
Malcolm Hutty -
Nigel Roberts -
Seun Ojedeji