[CCWG-ACCT] Our timetable -- some personal observations

[Nigel Roberts]

On 12/16/2015 03:57 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:


 > tests. So the fundamental quality of the work is not in question.

I regret to say that I am afraid it is.
 >



 > be clear - and that is the basis on which I have been happy to accept
 > the truncated process for this phase.

By 'truncate process' you mean the consistent, deliberate and largely 
successful attempts to subvert the Chartered Process.

 >
 > Third, the drivers. To me the following have helped leave me able to
 > deal with the compressed timeframe:
 >
 > - pressure from senior ICANN staff and directors to "get it done" - and
 > clear paintings, as recently as Dublin, of "horror" scenarios if the
I don't understand this statement.

Firstly, the alleged pressure to 'get it done at all costs' does not 
appear to emanate from the Board. It comes from unstated and unnamed actors.

I do not agree with the Board's bombshell tactics in Santa Monica.

I do not agree with some of the Board's more recent fundamental 
objections, published on the 14th.

But I submit, the Board would have done neither of these things if it 
was hell bent on "get 'er done" at all costs.

Therefore I feel that's a misrepresentation.

Furthermore, I fail to see how the (very real) pressure on the WG 
allegedly from the Board (doubtful, see above) can give you comfort.

Irrespective of whence it originates, it is exactly this behaviour, 
plagiarised from the 1999 edition of the playbook entitled "How to Steal 
an Internet", that concerns me most.


 > report isn't finished by mid-January. This has tended to be based on
 > views about the U.S. political cycle.

I am particularly concerned that we (that is to say ICANN and the 
community) are seen to be taking a United States domestic political 
position, and that is wholly inimincal and detrimental to ICANN's long 
term future.

It's clear that a Democratic administration is going to be less 
skeptical of a privatization plan, since ICANN originated in a Clinton 
administration plan. However, there is a world of difference between 
recognizing this, and to be seen explicitly conducting ourselves in a 
way designed to present a future Republican administration with an 
irreversible fait accompli, because we just they would be hostile.

Yet, I see this motivation expressed time and time again, both publicly 
on list postings, and privately.

We have to create a system that will pass objective muster. We will have 
to deal with future United States administrations of all political hues, 
whether transition happens now or if the process continues into a Donald 
Trump or Ted Cruz presidency.

Any new Government, reviewing a politicised ICANN seen to be explicitly 
supportive of the previous adminsitration will be in an much more 
precarious position than one which behaves neutrally and objectively.

Even should ICANN be legally free of US government involvement (and I 
remain unelucidated regarding the actual statutory powers by which 
separation is intended to take place), the US will remain the host nation.

It would be naive to believe that the USG will not take AT LEAST as much 
interest over ICANN's future behaviour as the Swiss Government has done 
with FIFA; it behooves us to not burn bridges and be able to deal with a 
Government of any political colour.

 > - a new intervention now with further substantive changes proposed, some
 > of which are fundamental to the Third Draft (esp. the human rights,
 > voting thresholds, inspection rights and IANA budget) that cannot be
 > incorporated without further delays to the process.


Are you saying that you prefer no delay, to creating an ICANN that has 
no obligations to respect fundamental rights?


 > cannot imagine numbers and protocols being happy about further time.
 > (That is a deliberate understatement. I think they would be furious.)
 >

Personally, to borrow a phrase often used by a much more critical 
observer of the process, "I do not give a dead rat's fuzzy behind" how 
furious they get. It is not for them to interfere in how the names 
community works.

I also note that it no longer the Board, but now the numbers and 
protocols people who are insisting we traduce the process.

Who will it be next? Captain Hook? The Easter Bunny?

I simply don't believe it.

Numbers and protocols don't need ICANN. I think they will look with some 
bemusemnt on what we are up in the names part, but the fact is, their 
area is easy, and ours isn't.

 > - do you think substantive changes such as those of the Board would
 > require delays if adopted following the close of public comments?
 >

Jordan, this a clever formulation, but its designed to predicate the 
answer. In other words 'it begs the question'

A better way of putting is, is "Should we do this right, or should we 
accept a defective proposal. Which do you prefer?"

 >
 >
 > --
 > Jordan Carter
 >
 > Chief Executive
 > *InternetNZ*
 >
 > +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
 > Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
 > Skype: jordancarter
 > Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
 >
 > /A better world through a better Internet /
 >
 >
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
 > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
 > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
 >