Please see inline. Thanks and best, Richard
-----Original Message----- From: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Athina Fragkouli Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 10:08 To: cooperation-wg@ripe.net Subject: [cooperation-wg] CCWG Second Draft Report - Numbers Related Analysis
Dear colleagues,
I would like to remind you that the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG) has published CCWG-Accountability second Draft Report that can be found here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783460
SNIP
6. Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model
The first Draft Report suggested that these powers would be exercised by changing ICANN’s structure into a membership-based organisation, with the SO/ACs as the members (Membership Model). An alternative model was also investigated, whereby the SO/ACs would become designators (Designator Model).
During the public consultation and thereafter, objections were expressed to both of these models. As a result of further discussions and consultations, the second Draft Report introduces a new structure called the Sole Membership Model.
This new model is understood to have the following benefits:
- It provides the required legal enforceability that the Designator Model and Membership Model could not. - It removes the problematic requirement for some SOs and ACs that they become legal persons, whether to participate as a member in the Membership Model or to enforce rights in both the Membership Model and Designator Model. - It avoids the problem of different statutory rights between SOs and ACs that become members and SOs and ACs that were not members, associated with the Membership Model. - By allowing action only upon support of the community through the Community Mechanism, it limits the issues related to the statutory rights of members associated with the Membership Model, which would allow members to dissolve ICANN and bring derivative suits.
The details of the Sole Membership Model can be found in section 6 (pp 47-53). The following aspects of the model are worthy to be highlighted:
- SO/ACs are not required to have a legal personhood. - SO/ACs would participate directly in the Sole Member by providing instructions to the Sole Member to exercise the community powers. - In order to instruct the Sole Member, SO/ACs may choose to have voting rights. Voting rights will be allocated votes in the following way: o ASO, GNSO and ccNSO, 5 votes each o GAC and At-Large, 5 votes each o SSAC and RSSAC, 2 votes each Early indications are that the ASO, ccNSO, GNSO and ALAC would be the initial set of voting participants in the Sole Member (with remaining and future SOs and ACs able to opt-in to voting participation). There is no requirement or expectation that a participating SO or AC cast all its votes identically for a given issue (meaning all 5 in support or all 5 against). - For Director removal, Directors appointed by an SO could only be removed by that specific SO or community. The Sole Member would merely implement their decisions.
Do you have any comments with regard to this model?
Yes, I do have comments. They can be found at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00002.h...
Thank you,
Athina Fragkouli ASO representative to the CCWG-Accountability