At 11:29 AM 9/14/2015, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
- DP wrote: My apologies if someone has pointed this out already,
but there's one feature of the Board's proposal that is very
disturbing. The memo describing the proposed enforceability regime
[
https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission121.pdf]
outlines the process:Â
- "4. to initiate formal MEM proceedings, the agreed number of SOs
and ACs must support the petition. If there is sufficient support amongst
the SOs and ACs then representatives of those supporting SOs and ACs
would become the MEM Issue Group.
- 5. The MEM Issue Group would then submit a Request for Arbitration to
the Standing Panel alleging a violation of at least one Fundamental Bylaw
..."
- This completely inverts (and subverts) the nature of the process we
have been discussing for months. Instead of a Board that (a) is
empowered to act by stakeholder consensus, and is (b) kept in check by an
IRP process in which its actions can be challenged by anyone materially
affected by the action (or by any of the SOs and ACs, acting on its own),
the new proposal turns that upside down:Â Under the proposal,
stakeholder consensus is required to BLOCK Board action - the challenge
can go forward only if "the agreed number of SOs and ACs"
support the challenge .
SO wrote:
Isn't this similar to the voting threshold described under the SMM?
whereby certain number(percentage) of votes of the CMSM would determine
whether to act on board's action/inaction. To simply put, are you saying
a single SO/AC should be able to BLOCK board action? because the current
CCWG does not allow that.
Sorry if this wasn't clear. First of all, I'm not talking [and the
Board, here, isn't talking] about the power to block Board
action. As I understand things, in the current CCWG proposal for
the SMM, the stakeholders can block Board action only if a high
voting threshold requirement is met. That is as it should be.
But each of the SMM components could, even without support from the
others, bring an claim before the IRP to have the Board action declared
invalid.
In the Board's new proposal/suggestion, the standard to BLOCK Board
action (the high voting threshold) has been converted into the standard
just to bring an "arbitration" that looks exactly like a
pseudo-IRP proceeding.
To put it differently: under the SMM model, if there was some kind
of consensus within the GNSO, say, or the ALAC, that the Board had acted
in violation of the Bylaws, it would have two options: to try to engage
the others into a stakeholder declaration of invalidity, or it could go
to the IRP to get that declaration. Under the Board's new MEM
proposal, it's option would require engaging the others and obtaining
widespread approval just to file for an independent look at the
claim. That's a big change.
David
- At 09:49 AM 9/12/2015, Carlos Raul wrote:
- Chris, Paul
- It is my personal view that since ATRT1 the community has been asking
for a better specific "rationale" of Boards decisions.
Not longer or shorter, but BETTER and coming from the Board (or
Committee) itself (consensus or not);and NOT from Staff (outside counsel)
si the community has a better understanding of the decisions (or
proposal).
- This question to me in this case has been framed in terms of
"enforcibilty" and the risk of capture of the single member as
per the memo. I look forward to my next half day in airports and
flights to look for the RATIONALE of these two very significant
arguments.
- Have a nice weekend you both.
- Carlos Raúl
- On Sep 12, 2015 9:31 AM, "Paul Rosenzweig"
<
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
- With respect Chris, I am deeply serious. The board’s
commitment to the multi-stakeholder model is not.
- Â
- And as for “size†when it refleeflects depth of analysis, yes
â€Â¦ it usually does matter. Glibness is easy when brevity is
the goal. Thoughtful consideration requires extended
analysis.ÂÂ
- Â
- A CCWG process that has gone on for nearly a year and involved 100s
of members of the community in meeting taking place across the globe and
tens of thousands of man hours does, actually, produce a proposal that
has the consensus of the Community. The Boardâ€ââ„¢s brief
“we don’t like it and here is our three page counter proproposalâ€
does not deserve our respect.ÂÂ
- Â
- Paul
- Â
- Paul Rosenzweig
-
[log in to unmask]
- O: +1 (202) 547-0660
- M: +1 (202) 329-9650
- VOIP: +1 (202)
738-1739
- Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
-
Link to my PGP Key
- Â
- Â
- From: Chris Disspain [
mailto:[log in to unmask]]
- Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 8:20 AM
- To: Paul Rosenzweig
<
[log in to unmask]>
- Cc: Accountability Cross Community
<
[log in to unmask]>
- Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
- Â
- Ah…sso, clearly, size does matter….to someâ€e…..
- Â
- With respect, you can̢۪t be serious.
- >
- Â
- Â
- Cheers,
- Â
- Chris
- Â
- On 12 Sep 2015, at 21:50 , Paul Rosenzweig
<
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
- Â
- Dear Seun
- Â
- With respect, you can’t be serious.Â. The Board’s
alternate e proposal is a 3-page memo. The CCWG’s pr proposal
is an integrated 180 page documents which, even if you limit yourself to
the parts directly related to the Single Member model (not including
stress tests, or the fundamental bylaws themselves) is roughly 8-10x as
long (depending on how you count it) ….
- Â
- Paul
- Â
- Paul Rosenzweig
-
[log in to unmask]
- O: +1 (202) 547-0660
- M: +1 (202) 329-9650
- VOIP: +1 (202)
738-1739
- Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
-
Link to my PGP Key
- Â
- Â
- From:Â Seun Ojedeji
[mailto:[log in to unmask]
]Â
- Sent:Â Friday, September 11, 2015 9:40 PM
- To:Â Jordan Carter
<[log in to unmask]
>
- Cc:Â Accountability Cross Community
<
[log in to unmask]>
- Subject:Â Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
- Â
- Hi Jordan,
- I don't think there is so much details to develop than what we
currently have with the sole member (which by the way also requires a lot
of details).
- I think the main question we need to ask the CCWG legal is whether
the leadership of the SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal standing
under the California law. Every other aspect of MEM seem to make sense to
me and just the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is what lawyers
needs to come in on.
- Perhaps it's also good to note that what is being proposed by board
has been discussed one way or the other in the past but somehow we did
not follow-up on the thoughts up.
- Regards
- Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
- Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
- hi all
- Â
- You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which
have now been lodged:
- Â
-
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.html
- Â
- I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo
on the MEM.
- Â
- It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into
account as we refine the proposal.
- Â
- An initial observation - there is a lot of detail that would need to
be developed if the alternative proposal was to be complete enough to
undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan.
- Â
- Happy reading!
- Â
- Cheers
- JordanÂ
- --Â
- Jordan Carter
- Chief Executive, InternetNZ
- +64-21-442-649Â |Â
[log in to unmask]
- Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
- _______________________________________________
- Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
-
[log in to unmask]
-
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
- _______________________________________________
- Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
-
[log in to unmask]
-
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
- Â
- _______________________________________________
- Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
-
[log in to unmask]
-
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
- _______________________________________________
- Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
-
[log in to unmask]
-
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
- *******************************
- David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
Foundation
- blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
- book (Jefferson's Moose)Â
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n    Â
- music
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc.Â
http://www.davidpost.com      Â
- *******************************
- *******************************
- David G. Post   book Â
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n   Â
  music
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic
-                        work Â
http://www.davidpost.com    Â
      blog  Â
http://www.volokh.com/author/DavidP
- *******************************
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Seun Ojedeji,
- Federal University Oye-Ekiti
- web:Â Â Â
http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
- Mobile: +2348035233535
- alt email:
[log in to unmask]
- Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it
- Right is right even if no one is doing it - Hope you agree!
*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc.
http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************