[CCWG-ACCT] An mplication of accountability models being discussed

[Nigel Roberts]

EXACTLY!


On 12/07/15 19:05, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
> Dear George
>
> With respect, we've been over this ground before.  In general, past
> practice, while interesting is not relevant to our discussion.  We are
> designing an accountability mechanism to bind the Board and community  going
> forward under changed circumstances.  In doing so we have been positing
> (through the stress test process) some modes of failure that we might
> anticipate.  The bounds of that consideration are the bounds of
> reasonableness and expectation.  We cannot defend against all risks and some
> risks are more likely  than others.  For that reason we've not considered a
> response to the zombie apocalypse :-).   But we have (and in my view must)
> consider many  situations that have not occurred in the past as risks that
> may eventuate in the future.  For me, past disagreements with the Board
> serve only one purpose -- to be a plausible predictor for likely future
> disputes.  At a minimum, the accountability mechanisms must address
> perceived past accountability failures -- i.e. these lists -- but we don't
> need to spend too much time dredging up old disputes and resolving them
> factually.  All of them (even the ones with contended facts) are plausible
> future scenarios that would need to be addressed even had they not
> previously been perceived to have occurred.
>
> As I said, we've had the "how bad is the Board" discussion before.  I
> confess I have played the game a bit myself.  But in the end it isn't the
> question.  Even assuming the current Board is filled with saints who never
> have erred, they will not be the future Board, who may be saints as well,
> but who may be sinners.
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> Link to my PGP Key
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 12:24 PM
> To: Jonathan Zuck
> Cc: Accountability Cross Community
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] An mplication of accountability models being
> discussed
>
> Jonathan,
>
> Thank you _very much_ for taking the time to respond to my request.  I
> really appreciate it, because I think that your list, with additions by
> Eberhardt, Jordan, Christopher and others give me a sense of why the  CCWG
> is progressing as it is, and why the discussions are going the way they are.
> Thank you for being forthcoming.
>
> I know that I entered this discussion late, and I regret that I felt so
> constrained at its beginning.  I suspect that I'm raising old issues, but
> I'm not sure.  I do subscribe to Chris' intervention that it's important to
> know whether the points raised are true and if so are widely held community
> concerns.  At the moment I'm agnostic because I haven't heard your point of
> view yet, and I hope that I have a sufficient reputation for fairness and
> independent thinking that you accept that as true.  I have no wish to defend
> established positions just because they exist.  OTOH, it's important to be
> able to proceed in an informed way based upon commonly agreed upon facts.
> (You may recall that on your point 7 below, I was the only vote against
> proceeding with the gTLD program at that time.)
>
> My family, with granddaughter, arrived yesterday afternoon and are here with
> us in Vermont, so my time is more limited than I would like.  Nevertheless I
> think this is an important dialogue, and I am glad that it has started, if
> only for my own education  --  although I'm not sure that it has occurred
> before.  (If not, it would be important to understand why  --  let's put
> that on the "to do" list.)
>
> I would like to get back to you and to the list later today.  Perhaps you
> might have time for a Skype conversation sometime tomorrow?
>
> George
>
>
> On Jul 12, 2015, at 7:49 AM, Jonathan Zuck <jzuck at actonline.org> wrote:
>
>> George,
>> I appreciate your questions about past actions of the board that might be
> motivating this accountability exercise, and I did spin off a short list for
> Chris not too long ago (see below) but I continue to believe this isn't the
> most productive line of reasoning. This exercise really isn't about the
> current board, which operated under he watchful eye of the NTIA. This
> exercise is about the next incarnation of ICANN, independent from any last
> tether to the USG and, as such, we owe it to ourselves to finally build real
> accountability mechanisms into the ICANN framework. There are certainly
> examples of international organizations which has lost there way. It's our
> duty to attempt to prevent that fate for ICANN. So I think it's a mistake to
> think of this exercise as "motivated" by the current board or any previous
> board. We're starting over and trying to get it right.
>> That said, here's an incomplete list of things I came up with during a
>> coffee break in BA that I believe at least raise some questions as to
>> how they might have been handled under a reformed accountability
>> framework. I'm sure Eberhard would add to this list some questionable
>> decisions to allow corrupt governments to expropriate ccTLDs. I hope
>> this is more helpful than hurtful. We really just have one chance to
>> get this fundamental balance of power right. JZ
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Failed thus far to develop binding accountability mechanisms.
>>
>> 2. Failed to adhere to policies around publication of documents prior to
> meetings.
>> 3. Failed to prevent decision making prior to termination of comment
> periods.
>> 4. Developed no standard for review during the previous attempt at
>> accountability reform (2006?)
>>
>> 5. Failed to develop public metrics to hold ICANN institutions to
>> account (such as contract compliance)
>>
>> 6. Failed to listen to community consensus on singular/plural and
> controlled the outcome of the redress mechanisms through overly narrow
> mandate.
>> 7. Pushed ahead with new gTLD program despite a lack of operational
> readiness, again without consequences.
>> 8. Launched a staff lead review of the new gTLD program prior to any input
> from the community.
>> 9. Scheduled new round of applications (at least initially) prior to
> scheduled reviews.
>> 10. Failed to reign in the Net Mundial initiative despite community
> objection or specify any consequences for secret board resolutions, etc.
>> 11. Accepted the GC advice to protect the corporation instead of the
> public interest.
>> 12. Weakened rather than strengthened the IRP.
>>
>> 13. Allowed staff to unilaterally change community agreement on registry
> agreements and imposed the unilateral right to amend registry agreements.
>> 14. Failed to implement half of the ATRT1 recommendations, again without
> consequences.
>> 15. Supported the practice of passing off all responsibility to third
>> parties so ICANN has no risk. (.SUCKS is the latest example)
>>
>> 16. First attempted to prevent an accountability component to the IANA
> transition and then tried to control it, insert experts, etc. rather than
> trusting the community to organize itself.
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>