[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Special Community Leaders CAll - 6 October - Shared Materials

Wed Oct 7 12:12:24 UTC 2015

+ 1 Avri.

On 07/10/2015 12:29, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My reading of this is that if the Board is willing to accept the CCWG
> proposals, which do reflect broad agreement, then we can make the
> schedule.  If, on the the hand the Board continues to go their own way
> and stands in opposition to the community, we may not.    We need to
> complete our work quickly with the fixes and then, as always, it is in
> the Board's hands.  We have already lost several weeks because of the
> spanner thrown when the Board produced their own proposal for
> accountability. Just imagine where we would have been had the Board met
> with us in LA with the attitude of working with the community instead of
> against it.
>
> I also think the doomsday scenarios are just a bit exaggerated.  We have
> to stop scaring people with the G77 boogeyman.  And if the Protocols and
> Number no longer trust ICANN, they will go their own way, whether it is
> before transition or after, they have been crystal clear about those
> intentions - it could happen anytime - why would the status quo of
> continuing NTIA oversight convince them to leave ICANN? I do agree with
> point V, if the Board continues to overrule the multistakeholder
> process, it will become ever harder to convince people that this is a
> workable modality for decision making.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 07-Oct-15 06:11, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
>> On 2015-10-07 08:03, Mathieu Weill wrote:
>>> You will find attached the set of slides that was prepared by ICANN
>>> and presented during the calls.
>> Wow, that slide on page 4 ("5 risks we face if the IANA Stewardship
>> Transition is Delayed/Fails") is a contentious parade of horribles if
>> ever I saw one!
>>
>> Setting that aside as merely disputatious, page 5 ("4 Remaining Questions
>> on  The Road to Transition") is interesting.
>>
>> Firstly, the framing - that these are indeed the questions, and the only
>> gating questions, is certainly open to debate. But the answers don't
>> currently point to swift completion either.
>>
>> Here is my assessment.
>>
>> Q. "Do we have broad agreement on ALL the elements to address the CWG
>> Dependencies?"
>>
>> A. Within CCWG, using its proposal as the base: yes.
>> Between CCWG and Board, on the Board's counter-proposal: Not really.
>> There is no agreement as to whether the power to challenge the Budget
>> and Strategic Plan would be effectively available in the absence of
>> the SMM,
>> which the Board opposes. Our Counsel raises key concerns about this in
>> their recent memo comparing the Board proposal with our own.
>> And this power (or some variant) is noted as being a CWG requirement.
>>
>> Q. "Do we have broad agreement on the requirements and enforceability of
>> the five community powers?"
>>
>> A. Within CCWG, on its proposal: yes.
>> Between CCWG and Board, on the Board's counter-proposal: No. The
>> enforceability
>> of the five community powers in the absence of the SMM is a
>> significant area
>> of disagreement; there is no agreement within CCWG that the MEM is an
>> effective
>> alternative means to ensure enforceability.
>>
>> Q "Are the above areas of broad agreement consistent with NTIA
>> criteria and do
>> they meet the requirements for a safe/secure transition of U.S.
>> Government stewardship?"
>>
>> A. Within CCWG, we are content that our proposal would achieve this.
>> Between CCWG and Board, neither party accepts that the other's
>> proposal would
>> achieve satisfy the NTIA criteria. For the Board, the CCWG's reforms pose
>> a risk to "safe and secure" stability of ICANN; for CCWG, the removal
>> of NTIA
>> oversight without its replacement by accountability mechanisms that it
>> agrees
>> to be effective and enforceable poses just as great a risk, and of
>> like kind. Moreover,
>> the Board's counter-proposal omits or reduces* safeguards the CCWG
>> thought
>> necessary to guarantee the openness of the Internet, another NTIA
>> requirement.
>>
>>     [* Discussion on this hasn't yet concluded; the Board might argue
>> that it
>>        offers adequate alternatives, and while some in CCWG may have
>> arrived at
>>        a firm conclusion to the contrary; others may be yet to make up
>> their minds.
>>        What cannot be contested is that the CCWG as a whole has not has
>> not yet
>>        accepted the adequacy of the Board's counter in relation to this
>> particular
>>        NTIA criterion, which stands independently and complementary to
>> the "safe and
>>        secure" criterion. See also below for comments on the need for a
>> systematic
>>        re-evaluation.]
>>
>> Q. Do we have broad agreement on an assured process to continuously
>> improve ICANN’s
>> accountability and evolve its governance structure?
>>
>> A. Not really. CCWG has tasked itself with addressing in WS1 only
>> those items that
>> must be addressed before transition, and has chosen to leave
>> everything else to a
>> WS2 that it trusts will be continued. The Board seemingly proposes
>> closing down CCWG upon
>> transition, ending WS2 as a distinct programme and leaving those
>> issues to be
>> addressed by disparate parts of the community (although it is not
>> clear that the
>> SOs even have the capacity to initiate proposals on all WS2 issues).
>> So there is
>> no agreement between CCWG and the Board on the process for continuous
>> improvement
>> either.
>>
>> Once again, an overview from ICANN that seems intended to force the
>> pace actually
>> shows how much still remains to be agreed. Perhaps this will persuade
>> the Board to
>> rethink its opposition to the considered view of the community, worked
>> on by this
>> group so intensively for almost a year.
>>
>> One thing the slidedeck does usefully point up is that before agreeing
>> to abandon its
>> proposal in favour of the Board's counter, even if it were minded to
>> do so, CCWG
>> would need to do a full re-evaluation against the NTIA criteria and
>> stress tests
>> to determine its adequacy. Our assessment of how our proposal
>> satisfies the stress tests
>> is only an assessment of OUR proposal, not of the Board's counter.
>>
>> Accordingly, if the Board remains unwilling to accept the
>> cross-community proposal,
>> this slidedeck suggests to me that expectations management, rather
>> than "racing
>> to the finish line", is the more prudent course of action.
>>
>> That further demonstrates how unhelpful and counter-productive is the
>> scaremongering
>> on page 4.
>>
>> Malcolm.
>>
>>
>
> ---
> 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

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987


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