[CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

[Paul Szyndler]

Eberhard,

I appreciate the distinction you make.

But surely there must be at least one conceivable scenario where the 
interests of a ccTLD manager could be affected by the current proposals.
Is there not a limit to the disengagement and independence you advocate?

I respectfully acknowledge that you may respond in the affirmative, but feel 
that the potentially seismic changes we are currently deliberating are 
likely to be of interest and consequence to anyone that can even spell 
"DNS".

Regards,

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el at lisse.NA]
Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 6:50 PM
To: paul.szyndler at auda.org.au
Cc: directors at omadhina.net; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

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     ;____/