[CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report

[Malcolm Hutty]

On 2015-12-01 00:55, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 07:04:22PM -0500, David Post wrote:
>> defamation example, and my fraud example, show - that would encompass 
>> many
>> things that we would all agree (I think) are OUTSIDE the Mission.
> 
> Surely, if ICANN takes such an action, the other accountability
> mechanisms that are simultaneously being created can be used to
> prevent such abuses?  Indeed, isn't that the very point of these
> manifold changes?

What "other powers"?

With respect, I don't think anyone could seriously think that the
power to sack the Board or remove directors is remotely effective as a 
means
of addressing the concerns in this debate, whether your concern is 
ICANN's
overreach (as David would have it) or ICANN's failure to act (closer to
Bradley's concern). Whatever be the purpose of these community powers,
I don't think it can be this.

The means the CCWG has constructed for addressing these issues lie in 
the
other half of the report: the value of the Mission as guidance to the 
Board,
the Reconsideration process, and the IRP. But they are all three 
entirely predicated
on getting the Mission text right: unless the Mission text accurately 
reflects
what we want ICANN to do, mere mechanisms for ensuring that ICANN 
honours its
Mission will not help. So while I am about to argue that David's
fears are misplaced, and that the Mission text does do what we need it 
to, he
is surely right to focus on the vital necessity of getting that text 
right, rather
than relying on some other part of the report to save us.

-- 
             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
  London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                  London Internet Exchange Ltd
            21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY

          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA