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

Edward Morris egmorris1 at toast.net
Mon Oct 5 17:35:19 UTC 2015


Yes.
  
 Not much else to say. Keeps with the tradition of the bottom up  
multi-stakeholder model, eliminates some of the side issues that have 
contributed to derailing our effort, allows us the keep the legal certainty 
and statutory power of the SMM while modifying it to fit this communities 
cultural and operational norms.
  
 Yes.
  
 Thanks Avri - sometimes it takes a philosopher to lead a bunch of lawyers 
and engineers away from pessimism, conflict and darkness. 
  
 Best,
  
 Ed
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org>
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 3:51 PM
To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" 
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Is it reasonable to avoid new mechanisms?   
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
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151005/12e102b4/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list