[CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
el at lisse.NA
Fri Oct 9 07:49:39 UTC 2015
Paul,
I wrote ccTLD managers, not ccNSO Members.
greetings, el
el
On 2015-10-09 09:42, Paul Szyndler wrote:
> Thanks Jordan,
>
>
>
> My questions were intentionally provocative in order to make clear
> my point about the need for ccTLD engagement.
>
> After all, I was responding to Eberhard’s question directly.
>
>
>
> I acknowledge that consensus models are under consideration. But
> the voting model has not been discounted.
>
> As long as it is “on the table”, it is valid for me to use it
> as an example of an issue ccTLDs should be aware of.
>
>
>
> With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging
> Stephen’s recent question):
>
>
>
> Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few
> years of serious work, makes final recommendations.
>
> This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO.
>
> However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome
> involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential
> objection by other parts of the community.
>
> This is not an inconceivable scenario.
>
> It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw
> changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect).
> I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for
> intervention by other SOs and ACs.
>
> This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop
> and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s
> point).
>
>
>
> The mechanisms of how it would be blocked, the distribution of
> voting rights and the likelihood of it occurring do not much
> matter in this case.
>
> The point is that there is the /potential /for a ccNSO PDP to be
> vetoed by others.
>
> The only alternative is to excise policy development processes
> from the currently-proposed accountability model, but would that
> defeat the purpose of the whole exercise?
>
>
>
> This is just one example of the many strings that need to be
> brought together and addressed before we all agree on a new model
> for accountability for a post-NTIA ICANN.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> *From:*Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz]
> *Sent:* Friday, 9 October 2015 5:48 PM
> *To:* Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler at auda.org.au>
> *Cc:* Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na>; Lisse Eberhard
> <directors at omadhina.net>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> A comment or two re Paul's note below;
>
> On Friday, 9 October 2015, Paul Szyndler
> <paul.szyndler at auda.org.au <mailto:paul.szyndler at auda.org.au>>
> wrote:
>
> Eberhard,
>
> I have long appreciated your vehement and unflinching
> commitment to the independence and autonomy of ccTLDs.
> However, as cc managers, we constantly face the challenge of
> balancing this independence against the need for engagement
> with the broader stakeholder community.
>
> I believe that the CCWG is one process we need to engage in.
> As cc managers, are we happy for "the rest" of the community
> to arrive at a solution for the future stewardship of ICANN
> (which includes a place for the ccNSO) without contributing to
> that process?
>
> In whatever membership model the community may arrive at, we
> ultimately get down to the unsavoury detail of votes and
> voting mechanisms. Are you happy with a 5 of 29 voting
> structure?
>
>
>
> Other models under discussion would see a consensus model rather
> than votes.
>
>
>
> Are you supportive of a model that has the potential to "veto"
> a ccPDP?
>
>
>
> This one is mystifying, since nobody has at any point suggested
> any possibility of this.
>
>
>
> What is your novel interpretation of the ccwg's proposal that
> leads you to this curious conclusion? If you are going to assert
> the conclusion, I think it would be helpful to share the basis for
> it - mainly so that we can fix it so such a problem does not
> occur.
>
>
>
> Irrespective of whether you answer "yes", "no" or "I don’t
> care", I believe that these issues are of sufficient
> significance to warrant our collective attention.
>
> At no point have I seen anything in the Stewardship or
> Accountability processes that threatens the existing internal
> roles or responsibilities of ccTLD managers. However, I
> believe we need to be engaged in the broader ecosystem because
> these potential changes will have an effect on how each of us
> can influence our environment in the future.
>
>
>
> Agree.
>
>
>
> Jordan
[...]
--
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421 \ /
Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list