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

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi Milton,

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:47:15AM +0000, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> 
> You missed the broader political context, as usual.

I'm not actually sure you know me well enough to make any
determination of what's "usual" for me.  Regardless, you seem to be
acknowledging that I didn't misrepresent what the board's statement
said in plain English.  So,

>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.

…it seems obvious that the board is stating that it _might_ have to
object later, based on its understanding of the final result from the
CCWG's work.  Whether we decide to interpret this as a threat or
merely a fair warning I think depends on our willingness to use the
principle of charity in our understanding.  I prefer to use it.  I
don't think it will help us at this juncture to take a
hyper-aggressive stance to any comment that is apparently offered in
good faith.

I'm far from convinced that the board is claiming it has a
unilateral power to reject recommendations.  It _is_ claiming that it
has the ability to speak as the ICANN board.  I'd rather hope they had
that ability.  Surely one of the things any board might feel obliged
to do is to state its view on planned changes to the way the
corporation is to be changed?

> 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. 
> 

I think the board is providing the comment, using the public comment
process, so it _is_ a public comment and the CCWG can indeed disagree.
But the board, given its unique perspective, also offers the CCWG an
indication of a possible implication to CCWG's future direction.  It's
up to the CCWG how to react to that.  One answer of course is to
decide that the board is just wrong, and reject their view while
acknowledging it.  At that point, of course, the board would have to
decide how it wanted to proceed.  I agree it's unfortunate that this
is happening at this late stage.  But given that it is, I think it's a
good sign (not a threatening one) that people are being clear about
things.  I also think it's better to take it at face value than to
construe it as a threat and treat it that way.  This entire situation
is fraught enough without creating new reasons for tension.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com