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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I think we can have consensus as long as we as we told.
Is this the new ICANN definition for the word?

avri

On 05-Oct-15 22:44, Jordan Carter wrote:
> 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 /
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus