Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2
Hmm. An April 1 RFC as a model solution for our issues with the board. Might indeed be the right approach. Or was that just by way of comment. For example an explanation of why putting things in ws2 is just silly and won't work. avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> </div><div>Date:09/28/2015 8:42 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Jonathan Zuck <jzuck@actonline.org> </div><div>Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> </div><div>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2 </div><div> </div>Thanks Jonathan. I find RFC 1925 most instructive when dealing with circumstances such as the one we currently find ourselves in. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1925.txt Cheers, Chris On 29 Sep 2015, at 09:29 , Jonathan Zuck <jzuck@actonline.org> wrote: Here's a flyer. How about we make the determination that converting ICANN to a membership organization is a WS2 initiative and design a stress test for whatever we come up with in the interim that examines the community's ability to make this transformation post transition. With the right set of bylaws changes, the ability to spill the board, etc. we might be able to meet the WS1 requirements of "sufficient leverage to accomplish WS2." We could keep it pretty simple, eliminate the deadline, the NTIA, etc. and work towards a membership model over the following year and spill the board if they resist. I know that spilling the board is something we don't regard as practical leverage for some random policy decision but I think it's pretty credible for a restructuring. Thoughts? Jonathan _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
All truth is said in jest. On Monday, September 28, 2015, avri doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
Hmm. An April 1 RFC as a model solution for our issues with the board. Might indeed be the right approach.
Or was that just by way of comment. For example an explanation of why putting things in ws2 is just silly and won't work.
avri
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ceo@auda.org.au');>> Date:09/28/2015 8:42 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Jonathan Zuck <jzuck@actonline.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jzuck@actonline.org');>> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2
Thanks Jonathan.
I find RFC 1925 most instructive when dealing with circumstances such as the one we currently find ourselves in.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1925.txt
Cheers,
Chris
On 29 Sep 2015, at 09:29 , Jonathan Zuck <jzuck@actonline.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jzuck@actonline.org');>> wrote:
Here's a flyer. How about we make the determination that converting ICANN to a membership organization is a WS2 initiative and design a stress test for whatever we come up with in the interim that examines the community's ability to make this transformation post transition. With the right set of bylaws changes, the ability to spill the board, etc. we might be able to meet the WS1 requirements of "sufficient leverage to accomplish WS2." We could keep it pretty simple, eliminate the deadline, the NTIA, etc. and work towards a membership model over the following year and spill the board if they resist. I know that spilling the board is something we don't regard as practical leverage for some random policy decision but I think it's pretty credible for a restructuring. Thoughts?
Jonathan
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Jonathan Pls kindly further elaborate what s do you mean by " the ability to spill the board" Regards Kavouss 2015-09-29 3:30 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
All truth is said in jest.
On Monday, September 28, 2015, avri doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
Hmm. An April 1 RFC as a model solution for our issues with the board. Might indeed be the right approach.
Or was that just by way of comment. For example an explanation of why putting things in ws2 is just silly and won't work.
avri
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> Date:09/28/2015 8:42 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Jonathan Zuck <jzuck@actonline.org> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2
Thanks Jonathan.
I find RFC 1925 most instructive when dealing with circumstances such as the one we currently find ourselves in.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1925.txt
Cheers,
Chris
On 29 Sep 2015, at 09:29 , Jonathan Zuck <jzuck@actonline.org> wrote:
Here's a flyer. How about we make the determination that converting ICANN to a membership organization is a WS2 initiative and design a stress test for whatever we come up with in the interim that examines the community's ability to make this transformation post transition. With the right set of bylaws changes, the ability to spill the board, etc. we might be able to meet the WS1 requirements of "sufficient leverage to accomplish WS2." We could keep it pretty simple, eliminate the deadline, the NTIA, etc. and work towards a membership model over the following year and spill the board if they resist. I know that spilling the board is something we don't regard as practical leverage for some random policy decision but I think it's pretty credible for a restructuring. Thoughts?
Jonathan
_______________________________________________ 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
Kavouss, I’m not sure I understand the question. I mean that ability for the community to enforce its will, more quickly than waiting for a turnover of the board in 2 years. That has always been the bare essentials of WS1 prior to a transition: the ability of the community to affect change. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 6:28 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2 Dear Jonathan Pls kindly further elaborate what s do you mean by " the ability to spill the board" Regards Kavouss 2015-09-29 3:30 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>: All truth is said in jest. On Monday, September 28, 2015, avri doria <avri@ella.com<mailto:avri@ella.com>> wrote: Hmm. An April 1 RFC as a model solution for our issues with the board. Might indeed be the right approach. Or was that just by way of comment. For example an explanation of why putting things in ws2 is just silly and won't work. avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> Date:09/28/2015 8:42 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Jonathan Zuck <jzuck@actonline.org<mailto:jzuck@actonline.org>> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2 Thanks Jonathan. I find RFC 1925 most instructive when dealing with circumstances such as the one we currently find ourselves in. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1925.txt Cheers, Chris On 29 Sep 2015, at 09:29 , Jonathan Zuck <jzuck@actonline.org<mailto:jzuck@actonline.org>> wrote: Here's a flyer. How about we make the determination that converting ICANN to a membership organization is a WS2 initiative and design a stress test for whatever we come up with in the interim that examines the community's ability to make this transformation post transition. With the right set of bylaws changes, the ability to spill the board, etc. we might be able to meet the WS1 requirements of "sufficient leverage to accomplish WS2." We could keep it pretty simple, eliminate the deadline, the NTIA, etc. and work towards a membership model over the following year and spill the board if they resist. I know that spilling the board is something we don't regard as practical leverage for some random policy decision but I think it's pretty credible for a restructuring. Thoughts? Jonathan _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Avri, WS1 has always been about power and WS2 about implementation. WS1 was never going to be complete and, for that matter, WS2 won’t ever be complete either. That said, if we have the power to spill the board with relative ease, we can easily reconvene, flesh out the member model, submit it to the board and spill them if they aren’t constructive. We don’t need to worry about deadliens, the congress, NTIA, etc. the whole point of WS1 is to ensure the capability to do just this. From: avri doria [mailto:avri@ella.com] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 9:21 PM To: Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au>; Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2 Hmm. An April 1 RFC as a model solution for our issues with the board. Might indeed be the right approach. Or was that just by way of comment. For example an explanation of why putting things in ws2 is just silly and won't work. avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> Date:09/28/2015 8:42 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Jonathan Zuck <jzuck@actonline.org<mailto:jzuck@actonline.org>> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CSMM as WS2 Thanks Jonathan. I find RFC 1925 most instructive when dealing with circumstances such as the one we currently find ourselves in. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1925.txt Cheers, Chris On 29 Sep 2015, at 09:29 , Jonathan Zuck <jzuck@actonline.org<mailto:jzuck@actonline.org>> wrote: Here's a flyer. How about we make the determination that converting ICANN to a membership organization is a WS2 initiative and design a stress test for whatever we come up with in the interim that examines the community's ability to make this transformation post transition. With the right set of bylaws changes, the ability to spill the board, etc. we might be able to meet the WS1 requirements of "sufficient leverage to accomplish WS2." We could keep it pretty simple, eliminate the deadline, the NTIA, etc. and work towards a membership model over the following year and spill the board if they resist. I know that spilling the board is something we don't regard as practical leverage for some random policy decision but I think it's pretty credible for a restructuring. Thoughts? Jonathan _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (4)
-
avri doria -
Greg Shatan -
Jonathan Zuck -
Kavouss Arasteh