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

Mon Oct 5 16:06:06 UTC 2015

I am very much in favor of the idea in Avri's email:

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
> tha
> 
> n
> 1 SO recommends against + 1 AC advises against)
>
>
Voting, and the opting out in reaction to voting, has created complexities
and weaknesses in our plan.  It has also provided easy ammunition for those
who don't want a membership model.  A consensus-based SM should lead to a
simpler and more inclusive process.  The Community Forum could be made an
integral part of that consensus-building process, as opposed to a mere
consultation opportunity with non-voting stakeholders.

I believe this should be pursued as a matter of urgency and priority.

Greg

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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 <
>>>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ajordan@internetnz.net.nz>
>>>> 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: <http://www.internetnz.nz>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at 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/20151005/5a062c1f/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/20151005/5a062c1f/image.gif>