* * * * *In a posting to the CCWG-Accountability mail list on Monday evening, October 5, 2015, just hours before a scheduled CCWG-Accountability meeting, ICANN Board Chair Steve Crocker announced that the ICANN Board of Directors' "concerns on the Sole Member model [also] still apply to a Designator model"--meaning that the ICANN Board does not support either the CCWG's proposed Single Member Model (SMM or CMSM) nor its alternative, the Designator model. Below is the full posting of Steve Crocker:
We appreciate the continued work that the CCWG is doing to consider the public comments received on its second draft report. Following the Los Angeles F2F we have heard suggestions that a Designator model relying on California statutes may be a replacement for the Sole Member model that was in the second draft report.
To be clear, the concerns that the Board raised on the Sole Member model still apply to a Designator model. The Designator model still introduces a new legal structure with powers that are intrinsically beyond the structure we have been using. We understand that many believe it is possible to constrain these powers in order to provide established protections, accountability and thresholds: This is unproven territory and will require more detail and time to understand and test the impact on our bedrock multistakeholder balance.
Further, it is unclear that this would represent the full multistakeholder community because we do not know yet which SO/ACs will join now or later. Moreover, the same community accountability issues present in the Sole Member are present in the Designator model.
Steve del Bianco’s constructive suggestion over the weekend that the Board could commit to a future governance structure review triggered by key factors seems like a good path forward. This can be enshrined in a new fundamental bylaw that would require the holding of a future governance structure review if SOs and ACs agree to kick off that review.
We are all in complete agreement on the objective of enforcement of the five community powers, with new/stronger mechanisms for board removal if/when necessary. Let’s focus on finalizing the details on these consensus elements to enable implementation and a successful transition.
for the ICANN Board of Directors
See also on Domain Mondo:
- Why the ICANN Board Does NOT Support the Single Member Model Oct 2, 2015
- IANA Transition, ICANN Accountability, "Has Always Been About POWER" Oct 1, 2015
- ICANN Board Does NOT Support CCWG Proposed Membership Model Sep 27, 2015
- China (CAICT) Objects to ICANN CCWG Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal Sep 24, 2015
- Only 19 of 90 Comments Support ICANN Accountability [CCWG 2nd draft] Proposal Overall Sep 22, 2015
- ICANN CCWG-Accountability Co-Chair Comments on the Public Comments Sep 15, 2015