3,197
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 159:
Line 159: + + − +
Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (view source)
Revision as of 21:27, 11 August 2021
, 3 years agono edit summary
ICANN’s SOs and ACs would participate in this Sole Member. Participating in the Sole Member would allow the participating SOs and ACs, as a group, to provide instructions to the Sole Member to use its member powers to exercise the community powers only as directed by the SOs and ACs (for example, to approve change to the Fundamental Bylaws). Participating SOs and ACs would not meet as the Member, and no representatives would cast votes. The directions for voting would come from the SOs and ACs themselves. No SO or AC, or any individual, has to 'join' ICANN or the Sole Member in order to exercise their rights, and no new legal obligations arise for any stakeholder.<ref name="ws1draft2" /></blockquote>
ICANN’s SOs and ACs would participate in this Sole Member. Participating in the Sole Member would allow the participating SOs and ACs, as a group, to provide instructions to the Sole Member to use its member powers to exercise the community powers only as directed by the SOs and ACs (for example, to approve change to the Fundamental Bylaws). Participating SOs and ACs would not meet as the Member, and no representatives would cast votes. The directions for voting would come from the SOs and ACs themselves. No SO or AC, or any individual, has to 'join' ICANN or the Sole Member in order to exercise their rights, and no new legal obligations arise for any stakeholder.<ref name="ws1draft2" /></blockquote>
This model was adopted after deliberation and discussion of three different options: an "empowered SO/AC" membership model, which modified the first draft's membership model to allow direct participation of SOs and ACs in the exercise of community powers, but which would not require SOs and ACs to incorporate or use some other means of obtaining legal status as entities; the "designator" model proposed by outside counsel (described above); and the Community Mechanism as Sole Member model. The Community Mechanism was selected as the new reference mechanism because it ensured that the community's powers would have a statutory basis for enforcement, while avoiding some of the complications intrinsic to the initial draft's membership model.<ref name="ws1draft2" />
This model was adopted after deliberation and discussion of three different options: an "empowered SO/AC" membership model, which modified the first draft's membership model to allow direct participation of SOs and ACs in the exercise of community powers, but which would not require SOs and ACs to incorporate or use some other means of obtaining legal status as entities; the "designator" model proposed by outside counsel (described above); and the Community Mechanism as Sole Member model. The Community Mechanism was selected as the new reference mechanism because it ensured that the community's powers would have a statutory basis for enforcement, while avoiding some of the complications intrinsic to the initial draft's membership model.<ref name="ws1draft2" />
The proposed Community Mechanism would have a voting structure that granted five votes to each of the ALAC, ASO, ccNSO, GAC, and GNSO, and two votes apiece to the RSSAC and SSAC. The proposal acknowledged that some of the ACs had already indicated that they would not participate in such a mechanism, but suggested including the full participant list in the bylaws. Under the mechanism, none of community powers could be exercised until there was an opportunity for the full community to engage in a discussion regarding the issue. The draft proposal stated that this was in part to ensure that all members of the community could make an informed decision.<ref name="ws1draft2" />
====Minority Statements & Dissents====
====Minority Statements & Dissents====
The second draft report included minority statements from both members and participants. Three minority statements were received. [[Sebastian Bachollet]]'s objections were almost entirely focused on the proposed community powers. In his opinion, all of the enumerated powers introduced more and more substantial risks to ICANN's governance than they provided certainty and accountability. [[Edward Morris]] had objections to the Community Mechanism's proposed voting and decision-making model. [[Eberhard Lisse]] had a variety of objections to both the direction and the processes employed by the working group, and urged his fellow ccTLD managers and the NTIA to reject the proposal as drafted.<ref name="ws1draft2" />
The second draft report included minority statements from both members and participants. Three minority statements were received. [[Sebastian Bachollet]]'s objections were almost entirely focused on the proposed community powers. In his opinion, all of the enumerated powers introduced more and more substantial risks to ICANN's governance than they provided certainty and accountability. [[Edward Morris]] had objections to the Community Mechanism's proposed voting and decision-making model. [[Eberhard Lisse]] had a variety of objections to both the direction and the processes employed by the working group, and urged his fellow ccTLD managers and the NTIA to reject the proposal as drafted.<ref name="ws1draft2" />
The proposal also noted "dissenting opinions" within each section of the draft, allowing individuals to state differences of opinion on particular issues or details of the proposal.
The proposal also noted "dissenting opinions" within each section of the draft, allowing individuals to state differences of opinion on particular issues or details of the proposal.
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}