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

Mon Oct 5 15:41:07 UTC 2015

Dear Avri,
That is one of my preoccupation that we avoisd voting .
Tks for proposal
Pls read my reply to our distinguished Paul
Kavouss

2015-10-05 17:28 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

> [image: Images intégrées 9]Dear Paul
> Thank you very much for your message
> I was really delighted to receive such a nice words from you
> Sorry MY message was prematurely sent before I edit that.
> I fact I copied some part of your message to use it in my reply
> However, it was sent before I finish.
> PLS READ THAT MESSAGE void I repeat the reply as follows
>  Dear Paul
>
> Thank you very much for your message and your analysis,
>
> I wish if I could continue to support SMM. But we need to avoid that few
> SOs which would probably participate in the voting with threshold of 2/3 (
> say 3 SOs with 15 votes ,the 2/3 of which become 10 would decide  rejecting
> standard Bylaws changes .This means out of 29 weighting vote 10 reject the
> changes which may be beneficial for 4 ACs .Is that the way you and your
> overwhelming majority wants to capture the entire commune by 10 votes out
> of 29 VOTES ???
> it is not the "few" who have  DIFFICULTIES  with MSM ,as I do not your
> counting criteria.  There is no such overwhelming majority supporting the
> SMM.  The whole accountability method was the results of many back and
> forth options and just few partisans pushed for SMM.
>
> I did not severely objected to it until the issue was discussed at ICANN
> 53 that two ACs announced that they will not participate, another AC is
> also likely in a position not to participate .then remains 3 or 4 out of 7
> communities .
>
> Then ICANN clearly opposed to SMM and ,in particular, its inherent voting
> concept. Very probably NTIA does not wish that GAC attend 7 participate at
> any voting as they have mentioned that they insist that GAC must remain as
> an Advisory Community. Then your SMM makes changes which touches the very
> interests of ACs and other who do not participate at voting and still you
> wish to impose the decision made by 10 vote to other communities with
> almost double number of votes weighting criteria .The interests of a
> minority prevails against the interest of majority. That is not acceptable
> .There are several question and NOT some questions about the structure of
> the SMM,, its accountability, And Fiduciary to the entire community which
> are much more larger than those 7 SOs  and ACs in the beloved SMM.
>
> The 300 (!) messages on the chat and the transcripts from Paris, LA and
> the Board calls suggests that the if it were put to a straight vote the SMM
> would NOT win since there are much more than that who have not decided or
> they are abstention .You may know that if the number of abstention is more
> than those voted in favour or against the voting is in valid.
>
> Either we want to dominate others or we want to talk and negotiate and
> collaborate with others.
>
> There is neither superiority nor domination. The only criteria is
> democracy, mutual respect, working together with a view to reach consensus.
>
> It was good to hear from you and learn from you .
>
> We continue to learn from each other’s if we listen to each other’s
>
> Cheers my dead Paul, I remain
>
> Kavouss
>
> 2015-10-05 16:54 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>
>> Dear Paul,
>> Thank you very much for your message and your abnalysis,
>> I wish if I could continue to support SMM. But we need to avoid the few
>> SSs which would probably participate the voting with 273obUT WE NEED TO BE
>> CAREFUL OF THE CONSEQUENCE THAT FEW sOs h respect, it is not the "few" who
>> have agreed.  As I read the history, the overwhelming majority support the
>> SMM.  There are some questions (per your "b" bullet below) about the
>> precise structure of the SMM, but a mere review of the last 300 (!)
>> messages on the chat and the transcripts from Paris, LA and the Board calls
>> suggests that the if it were put to a straight vote the SMM would win by a
>> large margin.
>>
>> This is not an argument that the SMM must win.  But it is a counter to
>> the argument that the dissent of a small, but vocal, minority should be
>> able to exercise a heckler's veto over a proposal that the majority of the
>> community supports.  If the multi-stakeholder model means anything, it
>> means compromise in t he first instance, and respect for everyone's views.
>> But it does not mean regression to the least common denominator or that the
>> community's broader needs must yield to an intransigent minority.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> 2015-10-05 16:44 GMT+02:00 Paul Rosenzweig <
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>:
>>
>>> With respect, it is not the "few" who have agreed.  As I read the
>>> history, the overwhelming majority support the SMM.  There are some
>>> questions (per your "b" bullet below) about the precise structure of the
>>> SMM, but a mere review of the last 300 (!) messages on the chat and the
>>> transcripts from Paris, LA and the Board calls suggests that the if it were
>>> put to a straight vote the SMM would win by a large margin.
>>>
>>> This is not an argument that the SMM must win.  But it is a counter to
>>> the argument that the dissent of a small, but vocal, minority should be
>>> able to exercise a heckler's veto over a proposal that the majority of the
>>> community supports.  If the multi-stakeholder model means anything, it
>>> means compromise in t he first instance, and respect for everyone's views.
>>> But it does not mean regression to the least common denominator or that the
>>> community's broader needs must yield to an intransigent minority.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from myMail app for Android
>>> Monday, 05 October 2015, 10:31AM -04:00 from Kavouss Arasteh <
>>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>
>>> >:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015-10-05 15:38 GMT+02:00 Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org
>>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3amshears@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
>>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ajordan@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
>>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aavri@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://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@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
>>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ajordan@internetnz.net.nz>
>>> Skype: jordancarter
>>> Web: www.internetnz.nz
>>>
>>> *A better world through a better Internet *
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@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 <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3amshears@cdt.org>+ 44 771 247 2987
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> [image: 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
>>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151005/5d3d3204/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 43 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151005/5d3d3204/image.gif>