Please see inline. Thanks and best, Richard
> -----Original Message----- > From: cooperation-wg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Athina Fragkouli > Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 10:08 > To: [email protected] > 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 > >
