[CCWG-ACCT] Community not sufficiently representative???

Phil Corwin psc at vlaw-dc.com
Tue Oct 6 21:54:07 UTC 2015


Excellent points, Jeff.

It is a rather nasty can of worms that has been opened.

Best, Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 5:42 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Community not sufficiently representative???

All,

I do not post too often on this list, but have been trying to follow along in the discussion. The recent comments by the ICANN Board about the lack of representativeness of the current SO/AC structure to justify the single member model have rubbed me the wrong way and I think I have figured out why.

All contracted parties agree to follow Consensus Policies, which are defined as those policies developed in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws.  According to the Agreements, "Consensus Policies and the procedures by which they are developed shall be designed to produce, to the extent possible, a consensus of Internet stakeholders, including the operators of gTLDs."  See Exhibit A of new TLD Agreements.

If the ICANN Board is basically saying that the community is not sufficiently representative for purposes of holding ICANN accountable, then how can they ever argue that the community is sufficiently representative to produce a consensus of Internet stakeholders for the purpose of developing Consensus Policies.  I have never heard the Board before make that argument.....that it could not take a proposed policy and impose it on the contracted parties because they did not believe the community was sufficiently representative.

The fact is we DO have about 10 Consensus Policies for which the Board DID determine that the policies produced by a sufficiently representative community.

You shouldn't be able to argue that the community is sufficiently representative for one purpose (Consensus Policies), but not for the purposes of holding itself accountable

P.S. For any future Consensus Policy, the Board has opened up a new area of argument if a contracted party does not want to follow it.....namely that the Consensus Policy was not developed through a sufficiently representative policy process.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw


________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151006/e1819d9c/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list