[CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

Fri Oct 9 14:54:51 UTC 2015

Thank you for pointing out a "difficult truth" in this situation: the inherent conflict of interest of a board trying to stop the community from creating checks on the board's power, including using the position of board and all of the organization's resources to try to stop the creation of those checks.  This conflict of interest cannot be ignored in our analysis and final decision making about the proposal.

Robin

On Oct 9, 2015, at 12:06 AM, william currie wrote:

> Thanks, Steve.
> 
> I want to clarify why I think the Board is acting in bad faith. The Board have a particular position as the highest decision-making body in the ICANN ecosystem and as such have the status of being the Accountable Actor - the "who" in the accountability chain: "who is accountable to whom, for what, by which standardss, and why?" When it comes to the process of developing a new accountability mechanism for ICANN, they have to negotiate a conflict of interest, namely, that they are the subject of the accountability process and therefore have an interest in the outcome that may be self-serving to their current position in the ICANN ecosystem. So when they acted to intervene in the multistakeholder process (whether in their minds they thought they were acting in good faith, i.e. making their views and counterproposal known) they could not override this conflict of interest and have compounded it. As I have observed the CCWG-A in action, I have been impressed by the delicate and respectful way that members of different SOs and ACs have conducted themselves in working through the complex options available, compromising where necessary to achieve a fragile consensus position in the the second draft proposal.  This was the bottom up multistakeholder in action. What the Board did was to use their power to destroy this consensus. And in doing so it was not possible to distinguish whether they were acting in their own (conflicted) interest or for the public interest. One has to read their action against the playbook of the powerful, one of whose classic techniques is "divide and rule" and as far as I can see they have driven a wedge into the CCWG-A.
> 
> Ironically, if the Community Accountability Mechanism were currently in place, this would constitute grounds to activate the community power to spill the whole Board.
> 
>  Willie
> 
> On Thursday, October 8, 2015, william currie <willie.currie at gmail.com> wrote:
> I endorse the CENTR and European Commission statement and encourage the CCWG-A not to lose heart at the eleventh hour.
> 
> Only a form of membership in ICANN can replace the NTIA accountability function. And it seems that only the GAC and the GNSO have the consistency and coherence to prevent the dilution attempts by the Board. At Large and ASO have wavered their way through the process. And are likely to go with a compromise. It is not clear what incentives NTIA is operating under and whether they have been supportive of the Board's intervention or not.
> 
> If I were to assess the position of South Africa and the Africa Group, they are waiting for the current multi-stakeholder process to collapse as now seems very likely. In the context of ICANN's botched dotAfrica process, African governments do not have any confidence in ICANN as a trustworthy or competent institution. They are much more persuaded by the intergovernmental logic of the ITU, where they are treated with respect. It is patently obvious to Africans involved in internet governance that the Board is effecting an anti-democratic manoevre to dilute the introduction of basic accountabilities. If they succeed they will have made a mockery of the bottom-up multi-stakeholder process. In any constitutional change, the task is to make a best effort to make the best decisions and not to try and use the uncertainty of the future to second-guess those decisions as the Board is attempting to do. I must say that I believe the Board is acting in bad faith and should be removed.
> 
> I call on the GAC and the GNSO to resist this attempt by the Board to railroad the CCWG-A into a false compromise. It is better that there be no consensus at Dublin than for GNSO and GAC to support a "solution" that will only reinforce African and international perception that ICANN is a dangerously flawed institution that should under no circumstances by entrusted with the IANA function.
> 
> Willie Currie
> An Advisor to CCWG-Accountability
> 
> On Thursday, October 8, 2015, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
> Thanks. Very clear and important statement.
> 
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/cell
> 
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>  
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill
> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 10:39 AM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> Along with some European members and participants of our group, I am attending the CENTR meeting in Brussels. This morning was a joint session with the European High Level Internet Governance group (made of european GAC representives), and it discussed the IANA Stewardship transition.
> 
> The outcome of this meeting is summarized in the statement that is now online :
> https://t.co/EuolALNkgV
> 
> You can also find my update regarding our work on our wiki (feel free to
> re-use) :
> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CENTR+Accountability+Update
> 
> 
> As part of the discussion, I have noted a suggestion by Roelof that we
> prepare a short, understandable paper to summarize the state of play,
> and what remains to be done.
> 
> Best,
> 
> --
> *****************************
> Mathieu WEILL
> AFNIC - directeur général
> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
> *****************************
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151009/257691a5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151009/257691a5/signature.asc>