[CCWG-ACCT] Is it reasonable to avoid new mechanisms?
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Mon Oct 5 22:41:35 UTC 2015
In ICANN-land, consensus comes in exotic varieties. For instance GNSO WGs
operate by rough consensus (though we call it "consensus")....
Here are the consensus thresholds for this group, from the CCWG charter:
In developing its Proposal(s), work plan and any other reports, the
> CCWG-Accountability shall seek to act by consensus. Consensus calls should
> always make best efforts to involve all members (the CCWG-Accountability or
> sub-working group). The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each
> position as having one of the following designations:
>
> a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified
> by an absence of objection
> b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most
> agree
>
> In the absence of Full Consensus, the Chair(s) should allow for the
> submission of minority viewpoint(s) and these, along with the consensus
> view, shall be included in the report.
>
> In a rare case, the chair(s) may decide that the use of a poll is
> reasonable to assess the level of support for a recommendation. However,
> care should be taken in using polls that they do not become votes, as there
> are often disagreements about the meanings of the poll questions or of the
> poll results.
>
> Any member who disagrees with the consensus-level designation made by the
> Chair(s), or believes that his/her contributions are being systematically
> ignored or discounted should first discuss the circumstances with the
> relevant sub-group chair or the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs. In the event
> that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the group member should
> request an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chairs of the
> chartering organizations or their designated representatives.
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier at intel.com>
wrote:
> 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> 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> 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.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>:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/dd2e5eda/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list