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

Tue Oct 6 02:56:24 UTC 2015

@ Jordan – well stated.   Postponing truly effective accountability measures developed using the Multistakeholder process  in favor of  “a review of structure” as suggested strikes me as another recipe for a years-long process the elements of which would take months to agree on in and of themselves – very ineffective.
Anne

[cid:image001.gif at 01D0FFA7.E9684350]

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel

Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP

One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725

AAikman at lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrlaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/>

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 7:44 PM
To: Steve Crocker
Cc: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Message from ICANN Board re Designator Model

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 mystified.

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

Cheers

Jordan

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

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<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 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Skype: jordancarter
Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz>

A better world through a better Internet

________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151006/333035cc/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151006/333035cc/image001.gif>