[CCWG-ACCT] Is it reasonable to avoid new mechanisms?

[Jordan Carter]

Thanks Avri for this nice statement of one of the key dilemmas facing this
group.

The divergence between:

- the transition can't happen until accountability is sustainable, and so
that requires the member model as a foundation

and

- the transition can't happen if there is a significant change such as that
to a member model, and so that requires ruling out the member model


is quite stark.

FWIW my instincts are in line with Avri's. If ICANN's current level of
accountability was acceptable, the community would not have demanded an
accountability process alongside the transition process, and NTIA would not
have agreed the two had to be intertwined and interrelated.


cheers
Jordan


On 1 October 2015 at 10:38, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The  Board's critique rests on a notion that the introduction of
> anything new in the ICANN system will be a destabilizing factor and most
> be avoided.
>
> This ignores the fact that by removing the NTIA backstop we destabilize
> the current system. It might have been possible to find a new balance
> (not that the old worked that well given the amount of discontent that
> existed prior to the CCWG process) by tweaking the system.  The early
> work of the CCWG, however, showed that this was not enough.  So we
> decided to bring back a notion that existed in the early ICANN design,
> the idea of membership.  Membership has always been part of the kit that
> was available to ICANN in the multistakeholder model.  An initial
> experiment met with some issues and instead of fixing that then, they
> threw the notion away without exploring possible tweaks to the system.
> As a result we are living in ICANN 2.0, a system that was  imposed in a
> top down manner and one that was never fully accepted by those at the
> bottom.
>
> Now, albeit in a very different configuration, the CCWG is proposing to
> establish a community consensus based idea of membership. I believe that
> this should be given a fair analysis before rejecting it.  It is also
> important to remember that the NTIA requirements were not a prohibition
> of new mechanisms or structures, but rather evidence that these
> structure did not increase the current risk, or fact, of capture and
> that they could be held to account.
>
> The Board criticism is important to look at for arguments that show the
> areas in which the CCWG plan either does not explain its protections
> against capture and its accountability checks and balances or may have
> gaps in these areas. If we cannot explain what we propose, or cannot
> close the gaps, then it becomes time to consider variations on the model
> or another model altogether. In my opinion, we are not there.
>
> avri
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>



-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter
Web: www.internetnz.nz

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151001/8b0fbbea/attachment.html>