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

[Nigel Roberts]

Doesn't that add up to 0?


On 08/10/15 11:19, Chris Disspain wrote:
> +1 to Roelof’s -1 :-)
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
>> On 8 Oct 2015, at 19:47 , Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl> wrote:
>>
>> -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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>