[CCWG-ACCT] Is it reasonable to avoid new mechanisms?
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Mon Oct 5 16:09:44 UTC 2015
Hi,
Thanks I did read your comments. Though in the case of consensus, if
all ACSO maintain the ability to object if so moved, with either advice
or recommendation then we do not need to worry about the Byzantine (love
that description) voting architecture and rules. I wonder if the ACs
that don't want to participate in voting would find such a scheme
acceptable. And would the rest of the ACSO for that matter? What I am
trying for is the notion that we have our member powers only when we
have community consensus. But in order to prevent one ACSO from having a
veto, we need at least two to object.
This also responds to the comment of what about adding a new ACSO? They
just get added with the same ability to have an objection count.
Also in another message, I recommended that the action of the SM be
reviewable under IRP, under the same conditions as the Board - violation
of the bylaws. Another part of the accountability, checks and balance,
story.
avri
On 05-Oct-15 11:41, Kavouss Arasteh 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
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>:
>
> Images intégrées 9Dear 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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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:
>>> <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
>>> <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/?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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list