[CCWG-ACCT] Message from ICANN Board re Designator Model

Jordan Carter jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Tue Oct 6 02:44:11 UTC 2015

Steve, all

In finalising the CCWG's proposal, the ICANN board is a stakeholder - an
important one.

It has a later role as a decision-maker, according to criteria that have
already been established by Board resolution.

A careful multi-stakeholder process over almost a year has analysed the
community's requirements and come up with a model that can do it - based
around membership.

The Board has abused its role as a decision-maker in this process. In
effect, it has sought to replace the open, public, deliberative proposal
development process with its own definition of what the community requires,
and its own solution that can deliver its evaluation of those requirements.

In doing so, it has profoundly challenged the legitimacy of the
multi-stakeholder model of decision-making that ICANN and its Board claim
to uphold.

Worse, as a matter of process, the Board has attempted to use its
decisional role at the end of the Accountability to move the trajectory of
debate away from what the community's requirements, fairly analysed dictate
-- trying to force the group to "jump the tracks" and into a solution that
is unlikely to be able to deliver on those requirements.

It's an ugly display of force in what should be a rational and
requirements-based conversation.

I sincerely regret the Board's choice as a group to take that approach. The
effect is to give fodder to all of those people, countries and groups who
have long argued that the entire notion of multi-stakeholder Internet
policymaking is a charade, behind which decisions are made simply and alone
by "the people who matter".

In terms of the CCWG's work, this email combined with your statement in Los
Angeles reduce the chances of any consensus being able to emerge between
what the Board has asked for and what the CCWG has developed.

It leaves me very sad that the groups here (Board and CCWG) have arrived at
this position. There is an apparent lack of listening and comprehension;
few displays of empathy or willingness to see things from another point of
view; and a consequent inability to really talk through and resolve the
conflicting perspectives and aims here.

I hoped the Board might make some overtures in that direction. I know I and
other CCWG members have been trying to do. To get this sort of response
indicates that that attempt serves no further purpose.

What are others' views about how we proceed from here? I confess myself

Look forward to speaking with you all in a few hours.



On 6 October 2015 at 15:21, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker at icann.org> wrote:

> We appreciate the continued work that the CCWG is doing to consider the
> public comments received on its second draft report.  Following the Los
> Angeles F2F we have heard suggestions that a Designator model relying on
> California statutes may be a replacement for the Sole Member model that was
> in the second draft report.
> To be clear, the concerns that the Board raised on the Sole Member model
> still apply to a Designator model.  The Designator model still introduces a
> new legal structure with powers that are intrinsically beyond the structure
> we have been using.  We understand that many believe it is possible to
> constrain these powers in order to provide established protections,
> accountability and thresholds: This is unproven territory and will require
> more detail and time to understand and test the impact on our bedrock
> multistakeholder balance.
> Further, it is unclear that this would represent the full multistakeholder
> community because we do not know yet which SO/ACs will join now or later.
> Moreover, the same community accountability issues present in the Sole
> Member are present in the Designator model.
> Steve del Bianco’s constructive suggestion over the weekend that the Board
> could commit to a future governance structure review triggered by key
> factors seems like a good path forward.  This can be enshrined in a new
> fundamental bylaw that would require the holding of a future governance
> structure review if SOs and ACs agree to kick off that review.
> We are all in complete agreement on the objective of enforcement of the
> five community powers, with new/stronger mechanisms for board removal
> if/when necessary.  Let’s focus on finalizing the details on these
> consensus elements to enable implementation and a successful transition.
> Steve Crocker
> for the ICANN Board of Directors
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter
Web: www.internetnz.nz

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151006/8c81b6b4/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list