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

Mon Oct 5 22:13:56 UTC 2015

There are only two types of consensus;
Unanimous (no objection), or a call by the chair of consensus.
I don't think you want to vest the power implied in the latter. If you want something less than unanimous then it's a vote.

On Oct 5, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:

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<mailto: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<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>:
<image.gif>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<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 <<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<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<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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 43 bytes
Desc: image.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151005/952dde1c/image.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 43 bytes
Desc: image.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151005/952dde1c/image-0001.gif>