ALAC Statement on proposed accountability models
In its formal response to the CCWG-Accountability proposal issued in August 2015, the ALAC said that it could support the model being proposed, but preferred something far less complex and lighter-weight, and that we saw no need for the level of enforceability that the proposal provided. Moreover, the ALAC had specific concerns with the budget veto and the apparent lack of participation of perhaps a majority of AC/SOs. In light of the reconsideration of a designator model by the CCWG, along with the recommendations of the Saturday morning break-out sessions, the ALAC felt that a revised statement was in order. Accordingly we decided, by a unanimous vote of the 14 ALAC members present (with 1 not present), to withdraw support for the Membership model. I want to make it clear that this is not a "red line" decision. Should a Membership model become one that is generally advocated by the CCWG, and supported by a supermajority of Board directors (who ultimately MUST support any changes that they will be called upon to approve, else they would be in violation of their fiduciary duty), then the ALAC reserves its right to support such a model. Alan Greenberg Chair, At-Large Advisory Committee
The CCWG proposal is not dependent on support "by a supermajority of Board directors". The requirement is that there is not a determination that it is not in the global public interest by a 2/3 majority of the Board. -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 9:42 AM To: CCWG Accountability Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ALAC Statement on proposed accountability models In its formal response to the CCWG-Accountability proposal issued in August 2015, the ALAC said that it could support the model being proposed, but preferred something far less complex and lighter-weight, and that we saw no need for the level of enforceability that the proposal provided. Moreover, the ALAC had specific concerns with the budget veto and the apparent lack of participation of perhaps a majority of AC/SOs. In light of the reconsideration of a designator model by the CCWG, along with the recommendations of the Saturday morning break-out sessions, the ALAC felt that a revised statement was in order. Accordingly we decided, by a unanimous vote of the 14 ALAC members present (with 1 not present), to withdraw support for the Membership model. I want to make it clear that this is not a "red line" decision. Should a Membership model become one that is generally advocated by the CCWG, and supported by a supermajority of Board directors (who ultimately MUST support any changes that they will be called upon to approve, else they would be in violation of their fiduciary duty), then the ALAC reserves its right to support such a model. Alan Greenberg Chair, At-Large Advisory Committee _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Are the ALAC appointed members now raising an objection against the report? In other words we no longer have (any) Consensus? If so, what does that mean? Can we go home now? Do we need to write a new report for new Public Comment? Can the ALAC appointed members continue to remain members or do they need to be replaced by ALAC with individuals who can be taken serious? greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s On 18 Oct 2015, 14:45 +0100, Alan Greenberg<alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, wrote:
In its formal response to the CCWG-Accountability proposal issued in August 2015, the ALAC said that it could support the model being proposed, but preferred something far less complex and lighter-weight, and that we saw no need for the level of enforceability that the proposal provided. Moreover, the ALAC had specific concerns with the budget veto and the apparent lack of participation of perhaps a majority of AC/SOs.
In light of the reconsideration of a designator model by the CCWG, along with the recommendations of the Saturday morning break-out sessions, the ALAC felt that a revised statement was in order. Accordingly we decided, by a unanimous vote of the 14 ALAC members present (with 1 not present), to withdraw support for the Membership model.
I want to make it clear that this is not a "red line" decision. Should a Membership model become one that is generally advocated by the CCWG, and supported by a supermajority of Board directors (who ultimately MUST support any changes that they will be called upon to approve, else they would be in violation of their fiduciary duty), then the ALAC reserves its right to support such a model.
Alan Greenberg Chair, At-Large Advisory Committee
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Alan much thanks for this statement its appreciated. Can I ask for you to clarify the below statement, is the ALAC stating that in order for the ALAC to change its position it has set out an internal requirement that a supermajority of the board must express their support for membership or is this referring to the board vote which requires a supermajority of board members to vote against the proposal as being not in the global public interest? -James Gannon On 18/10/2015, 2:42 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Alan Greenberg" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
hould a Membership model become one that is generally advocated by the CCWG, and supported by a supermajority of Board directors (who ultimately MUST support any changes that they will be called upon to approve
I think that my answer to Ken addressed this. If not, let me know. For the record, we have no private access to Board members to ascertain that 11 member definitively will support the Bylaw changes when they come to the Board. But we will guide our action based on our perception of Board support. Speaking only for myself and given the vast number of hours I have personally invested in the CWG/CCWG and the internal At-Large processes supporting the ALAC Members, I see NO benefit in putting forward a proposal, no matter how bottom-up it is, if there is a high probability that it will not be implmented. Alan At 18/10/2015 10:35 AM, James Gannon wrote:
Hi Alan much thanks for this statement its appreciated. Can I ask for you to clarify the below statement, is the ALAC stating that in order for the ALAC to change its position it has set out an internal requirement that a supermajority of the board must express their support for membership or is this referring to the board vote which requires a supermajority of board members to vote against the proposal as being not in the global public interest?
-James Gannon
On 18/10/2015, 2:42 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Alan Greenberg" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
hould a Membership model become one that is generally advocated by the CCWG, and supported by a supermajority of Board directors (who ultimately MUST support any changes that they will be called upon to approve
Hang on, the ALAC took a formal vote on the second day on the most contentious issue of the meeting and didn't include or supply a rationale? That sounds every bit as unhelpful and unprofessional as the Board action of recent weeks. Kieren On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 6:42 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
In its formal response to the CCWG-Accountability proposal issued in August 2015, the ALAC said that it could support the model being proposed, but preferred something far less complex and lighter-weight, and that we saw no need for the level of enforceability that the proposal provided. Moreover, the ALAC had specific concerns with the budget veto and the apparent lack of participation of perhaps a majority of AC/SOs.
In light of the reconsideration of a designator model by the CCWG, along with the recommendations of the Saturday morning break-out sessions, the ALAC felt that a revised statement was in order. Accordingly we decided, by a unanimous vote of the 14 ALAC members present (with 1 not present), to withdraw support for the Membership model.
I want to make it clear that this is not a "red line" decision. Should a Membership model become one that is generally advocated by the CCWG, and supported by a supermajority of Board directors (who ultimately MUST support any changes that they will be called upon to approve, else they would be in violation of their fiduciary duty), then the ALAC reserves its right to support such a model.
Alan Greenberg Chair, At-Large Advisory Committee
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Alan, I think it would be more interesting to know whether ALAC is opposed to enforcement of budget veto power, which at this point seems to be the most significative difference between designator and member model, or any other reason to prefer one over the other. That would make for an easier way to accommodate ALAC expectations, hopes and fears into the proposal, instead of looking at the outcome (which is the model decision). Rubens
On Oct 18, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
In its formal response to the CCWG-Accountability proposal issued in August 2015, the ALAC said that it could support the model being proposed, but preferred something far less complex and lighter-weight, and that we saw no need for the level of enforceability that the proposal provided. Moreover, the ALAC had specific concerns with the budget veto and the apparent lack of participation of perhaps a majority of AC/SOs.
In light of the reconsideration of a designator model by the CCWG, along with the recommendations of the Saturday morning break-out sessions, the ALAC felt that a revised statement was in order. Accordingly we decided, by a unanimous vote of the 14 ALAC members present (with 1 not present), to withdraw support for the Membership model.
I want to make it clear that this is not a "red line" decision. Should a Membership model become one that is generally advocated by the CCWG, and supported by a supermajority of Board directors (who ultimately MUST support any changes that they will be called upon to approve, else they would be in violation of their fiduciary duty), then the ALAC reserves its right to support such a model.
Alan Greenberg Chair, At-Large Advisory Committee
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
The ALAC has gone on record as not believing that the budget veto was necessary and possibly even harmful. Alan At 18/10/2015 11:23 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
Alan,
I think it would be more interesting to know whether ALAC is opposed to enforcement of budget veto power, which at this point seems to be the most significative difference between designator and member model, or any other reason to prefer one over the other. That would make for an easier way to accommodate ALAC expectations, hopes and fears into the proposal, instead of looking at the outcome (which is the model decision).
Rubens
On Oct 18, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
In its formal response to the CCWG-Accountability proposal issued in August 2015, the ALAC said that it could support the model being proposed, but preferred something far less complex and lighter-weight, and that we saw no need for the level of enforceability that the proposal provided. Moreover, the ALAC had specific concerns with the budget veto and the apparent lack of participation of perhaps a majority of AC/SOs.
In light of the reconsideration of a designator model by the CCWG, along with the recommendations of the Saturday morning break-out sessions, the ALAC felt that a revised statement was in order. Accordingly we decided, by a unanimous vote of the 14 ALAC members present (with 1 not present), to withdraw support for the Membership model.
I want to make it clear that this is not a "red line" decision. Should a Membership model become one that is generally advocated by the CCWG, and supported by a supermajority of Board directors (who ultimately MUST support any changes that they will be called upon to approve, else they would be in violation of their fiduciary duty), then the ALAC reserves its right to support such a model.
Alan Greenberg Chair, At-Large Advisory Committee
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 10/18/15 6:42 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: [snips]
something far less complex and lighter-weight, and that we saw no need for the level of enforceability
I too prefer something far less complex and lighter-weight, and also remain unconvinced of the necessity claims offered since January by the Business Constituency.
Accordingly we decided, by a unanimous vote of the 14 ALAC members present (with 1 not present), to withdraw support for the Membership model.
I'm pleased to see this, whether what is meant is members, in the sense that we tried, and were unable to implement in 2002, or members, in the sense of existing bylaws created committees and supporting organizations, or in the sense of some single member. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
participants (7)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Chartier, Mike S -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
James Gannon -
Kieren McCarthy -
Rubens Kuhl