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

Thu Oct 8 10:34:17 UTC 2015

We do not have agreement on the essential elements.  The Board keeps saying that and the lawyers keep saying they are wrong.  The Board's offer is a chimera.
--
Paul
Sent from myMail app for Android Thursday, 08 October 2015, 09:47AM +01:00 from Roelof Meijer < Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl> :

>-1
>
>>"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.²
>
>Counterproductive, in my opinion. Let¹s not suggest that the community is
>in full agreement on the 2nd draft CCWG proposal, it is not.
>Let¹s not suggest that the board is (nothing but) working against us, it
>is not. We have agreement on the most important ingredients of the
>proposal: specific powers for the community that can be enforced. We do
>not have agreement on the mechanism to implement these. If we want that,
>and I assume we do, both the board AND we have to change the way we
>communicate and collaborate with each other.
>Let¹s stay focussed on our mission, our goals and bridging the gap.
>Enlarging it, will only help us fail.
>
>Best,
>
>Roelof Meijer
>
>
>
>
>On 07-10-15 13:29, " accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
>behalf of Avri Doria" < accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
>behalf of  avri at acm.org > 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 ICANN¹s
>>> 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20151008/7cdbf339/attachment.html>