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

Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Mon Oct 5 15:12:04 UTC 2015


Sounds like an idea worth pursuing :-)
regards
Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

> Am 05.10.2015 um 16:52 schrieb Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> What about the idea of recasting the SM to work on a consensus model
> instead of voting?
> 
> The info we got from Sidley/Adler indicates that this should be
> possible.  Then instead of working on votes we can work on
> Recommendations and Advice objections to gauge consensus (e.g. no more
> that 1 SO recommends against + 1 AC advises against)
> 
> Note: I personally accept that constant outreach, a place for anyone in
> an ACSO and open comment period in the 6 UN languages meets the
> condition for a viable global model of participation.
> 
> avri
> 
>> On 05-Oct-15 10:31, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>> Jordan,
>> We should not pusjh to a particular model SMM  while we have
>> disagreement a) from the Board and b) from people among CCWG ,in
>> partzicular, if the voting arrangements are maintained and if most of
>> the ACs refrain to pop in/ or opt for voting and c) indication from
>> others that with such voting by the ACs the balance between the
>> private sectors and others, on the one hand, and governments on the
>> other hand is c ompromised,
>> We need to listen to each others and not to few that have already
>> agreed to SMM.
>> Pls kindly understand that there is diverghence of views .$
>> Let us find out a consensus along the line that was proposed by Stev
>> and amended by me
>> Tks
>> Kavouss  
>> 
>> 2015-10-05 16:25 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    2015-10-05 15:38 GMT+02:00 Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org
>>    <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>:
>> 
>>        + 1 also
>> 
>>>        On 05/10/2015 13:54, James M. Bladel wrote:
>>>        +1. 
>>> 
>>>        Any claims that we must abbreviate accountability reforms in
>>>        order to fit the IANA transition timeline has those two
>>>        priorities reversed. 
>>> 
>>>        Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>        On Oct 2, 2015, at 19:44, Jordan Carter
>>>        <jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>
>>>        wrote:
>>> 
>>>>        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
>>>>        <mailto: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
>>>>            <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>>            https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>        -- 
>>>>        Jordan Carter
>>>> 
>>>>        Chief Executive 
>>>>        *InternetNZ*
>>>> 
>>>>        +64-4-495-2118 <tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) |
>>>>        +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob)
>>>>        Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>>>>        <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> 
>>>>        Skype: jordancarter
>>>>        Web: <http://www.internetnz.nz>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
>>>>        <mailto: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
>>>        <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>        https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> 
>>        -- 
>> 
>>        Matthew Shears
>>        Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>        Center for Democracy & Technology 
>>        mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org> + 44 771 247 2987
>>        <tel:%2B%2044%20771%20247%202987>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>        Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>    
>> 
>>        This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>        software.
>>        www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>        _______________________________________________
>>        Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>        Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>        <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>        https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
> 
> ---
> 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



More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list