[CCWG-ACCT] FW: Fwd: FW: ICANN Board Comments on Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations

Tue Dec 15 05:23:58 UTC 2015

*Dear Becky*

*1.You said that *

Quote

*"B. Does the Board propose to replace (in some place other than the
Mission Statement) the following two concepts:*

*ICANN shall not impose regulations on services that use the Internet’s
unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide; and*

*ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into, and enforce
agreements with contracted parties in service of its Mission"*

Unquote

May request you to kindly advise which on « in* some place other than the
Mission Statement”*

2. Even if in those some other places that you referred the changes made by
the Board ,it would have direct impact on the “ Mission Statement” on which
many hours were spent to agree to the proposed language.

May I respectfully ask your clarification please

Regards

Kavouss

2015-12-15 5:17 GMT+01:00 Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au>:

> Hi Milton,
>
> Perhaps the below, which I sent to the ccTLD community yesterday, will
> help you to understand what the Board's position is.
>
> Chris
>
> Hello All,
>
> You will probably by now have seen that the Board has submitted some
> comments in respect to the Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal and an
> accompanying letter from Steve Crocker. In case you haven’t seen these yet,
> they are attached.
>
> I thought it was important, as a ccNSO elected member of the Board, to
> write to you to explain the background to these comments and offer to
> discuss them with you at your convenience.
>
> I am writing personally and not at the behest of the Board nor to provide
> you with input/comment from the Board. These are my personal opinions about
> where I think the Board is at, their motivation (and mine) for making the
> comments and what some of the comments might mean.
>
> In my opinion, the Board is 100% supportive of the transition and filled
> with admiration for the work and effort of those involved in the CCWG.
> The Board believes that there are a number of areas of concern in the
> report that need to be dealt with. I stress that these are concerns of
> the Board as a whole. They are not concerns of staff that have simply been
> agreed to by the Board but rather concerns that the Board has expressed.
> Whilst the comment document has been drafted by staff (as has the draft
> proposal from the CCWG) this has been done at the direction of the Board
> and the full Board has unanimously endorsed the comments.
>
> Some of these areas of concern can be characterised as ‘might it be better
> if’ areas but a small number are of higher concern. The Board has carefully
> considered these and provided detailed comment together with suggestions
> for dealing with the problem(s) that the Board perceives. There may be
> other solutions to the problems and the Board is not tied to its suggested
> solution.
>
> In my opinion, the Board believes that if these higher concern
> recommendations (or parts thereof) are not dealt with then when the Board
> applies the global public interest test, in accordance with its resolution
> of 16 October 2014 (
> https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d),
> there is a significant chance that the Board will find that some of those
> recommendations do not meet that test.
>
> I fully endorse the Board comments and I believe that it is in all of our
> best interests as ccTLD managers to take them into account. I encourage you
> to carefully consider the CCWG recommendations and the comments of
> the Board and to provide your input to the ccNSO Council. I fully respect
> that some of you will not agree with all (or any!) of the comments of
> the Board but hope that, given my role and my commitment to the ccNSO and
> ccTLDs generally, you will understand that these comments are well
> intentioned and made in an effort to solve real issues with the current
> CCWG draft.
>
> I stress again that the Board is, in my opinion, 100% behind the
> transition. However, the transition has to be 'done right' and ‘transition
> at all costs’ is not an acceptable stance, in my view. I know the time line
> is important but I would rather miss a deadline than not deal with the very
> real concerns of a group of 19 experienced individuals who have been
> nominated or elected to the Board to serve the ICANN community and to act
> in their best interests.
>
> I will be delighted to answer any questions (on or off list) and to talk
> to you one-on-one or as a group. I stand ready to do whatever it takes to
> get a CCWG Final Report out to NTIA as soon as possible.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer
> .au Domain Administration Ltd
> T: +61 3 8341 4111 <+61%203%208341%204111> | F: +61 3 8341 4112
> <+61%203%208341%204112>
> E: ceo at auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au
> auDA
>
>
> On 15 Dec 2015, at 14:48, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> Andrew:
>
> What I read is that the board might have to ask that question later, not
> that it
>
> has made a determination now.  What did I miss?
>
>
> You missed the broader political context, as usual. While you are correct
> that the board statement does not explicitly say that the recommendations
> are not in the public interest, it is for all practical purposes issuing a
> threat. The threat is: change this to our liking or we will delay
> indefinitely the conclusion of this process by invoking our (unilaterally
> imposed) power to not accept the recommendation.
>
> Specifically, here is what the board said:
>
> " the Board will have to consider whether its concerns were addressed, and
> whether the final recommendations (including the specifics within those
> recommendations) are in the global public interest."
>
> Given the timeline and the current situation, that is not only a threat,
> but a rather cowardly and disruptive one. If the board really does not
> believe that the recommendations "meet the global public interest", I want
> to know, and I think the entire CCWG and ICANN community has a right to
> know, how many board members, and which board members, share this opinion.
>
> If the board is not willing to provide this information, then their
> comments are merely a suggestion, on t he order of any other public
> comment, and the CCWG can disregard those suggestions and go with its own
> opinion if it so chooses.
>
> If the board as a whole, or at least 2/3 of it, really does believe that
> those recommendations are not acceptable to it (and frankly, I do not
> believe that the board is any better than determining what is in the global
> public interest than the CCWG, which is larger and more representative than
> the board) then they need to tell us now. And we have a right to know who
> those board members are.
>
> We really don't have time to play games with hints and allegations.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151215/f6eb710c/attachment-0001.html>