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

Thu Oct 8 14:52:34 UTC 2015

Nope, you a lawyer? It ads up to -2 (or better: it distracts to -2) ;)

Cheers,

Roelof

On 08-10-15 13:46, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
behalf of Nigel Roberts" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
on behalf of 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
>