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

Tue Oct 6 04:40:45 UTC 2015

I strongly agree with Jordan.

I personally find that attitude of the board to be very 'convenient'.

According to them, ICANN is multistakeholder enough to become the steward
of IANA, but the community is not multistakeholder enough to become a
member of ICANN. Effectively, we are making ICANN the corporation the
steward of IANA and not ICANN the community.

I also find it an extremely convenient argument that 'while entering
uncharted territories to make ICANN the steward is very safe; at the same
entering uncharted territories to make ICANN a membership organisation is
untested and very very unsafe'.

In the CWG (Stewardship), the board consistently argued that
1) the CCWG will solve all accountability issues and therefore ICANN should
be made the steward.
2) the ICANN structures are truly multistakeholder and therefore ICANN
should be made the steward
3) entering unchartered territories by making ICANN the steward is very
very safe
4) the NTIA may not accept the Contract Co model

In complete contrast, in the CCWG (Accountability), the board is arguing
that
1) the CCWG should postpone major accountability measures to after the
transition
2) the ICANN structures are currently not multistakeholder enough to become
the members of ICANN
3) entering unchartered territories by making ICANN a membership
organisation is very very unsafe.
4) the NTIA may not accept the membership model

I do not find the promises for future change to be trustworthy. I am
strongly against pushing something so important and basic to WS2.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrlaw.com>
wrote:

> @ 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
>
>
>
> *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 <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> 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
> 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
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> Web: 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151006/c4d042ae/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151006/c4d042ae/image001.gif>