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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Tue Oct 6 06:14:40 UTC 2015 

Avri,

I believe the corollary to your statement is "If we want your opinion,
we'll tell it to you."

Greg

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
>
> Hi,
>
> Thad should have been,
>
> We can have consensus as long as we do as we are told.
>
> Have our meetings become negotiations on the  terms of surrender?
>
> avri
>
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151006/341b374d/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list