[cooperation-wg] CCWG Second Draft Report - Numbers Related Analysis

Please see inline.

Thanks and best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf
> Of Athina Fragkouli
> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 10:08
> To: cooperation-wg at 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.html 

> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Athina Fragkouli
> ASO representative to the CCWG-Accountability
> 
>