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

Thu Oct 8 12:13:48 UTC 2015

Actually Nigel is right if it were 1+(-1) but in this case it can be  +1 x
-1 which would always result to -1, I guess this should say something about
the things we insert as mechanisms in this process; Make them complex (by
changing its structure as is the case with bracket) and you will be amazed
at the zero result. I prefer outcomes that are more predictable ;-)

Cheers!

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:

> I believe that mathematically speaking it adds up to -2. But then, what
> would I know…I’m a recovering lawyer...
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Chris
>
> On 8 Oct 2015, at 22:46 , Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151008/86610f84/attachment.html>