[CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Sat Oct 10 19:04:52 UTC 2015
Paul,
that's not what I understood at all. The CWG IANA proposal along with
the overall proposal that has gone through the ICG is what's going to be
sent to NTIA. The CCWG Accountability is a separate process that has
NOTHING to do with NTIA apart from a small part of the CCWG's work that
has to feed into the CWG's work. But the CCWG's work has to go through
the Board first and the Board has every right to veto it, if it feels
the proposal is incompatible with the public interest.
I think people are really getting confused here.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 09/10/2015 19:59, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>
> Jordan
>
>
>
> This is a magnificent effort for which you are to be commended. I
> have two modest amendments to your timeline to make –
>
>
>
> First, you note the testimony before the Senate in February 2015. I
> think it is worth noting the express commitment from the CEO of ICANN:
> Senator Thune asked whether the ICANN Board would “send a proposal to
> NTIA that lessens the Board’s power or authority?” Fadi Cheade
> responded, “We will if the community and the stakeholders present us
> with a proposal. We will give it to NTIA, and we committed already
> that we will not change the proposal, that if we have views on that
> proposal, we should participate with the community. Once that proposal
> comes from our stakeholders, we will pass it on to NTIA as is.”
> Exchange available at
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-September/005263.html.
>
>
>
> Second, you note the July 2015 House testimony of A/S Strickling and
> CEO Cheade and say that “no objections” were made to the idea of
> membership. That is true, as far as it goes, but I find another
> exchange at that hearing far more significant to your story:
>
> According to Assistant Secretary Strickling’s testmony, “ICANN has
> indicated that it expects to receive both the ICG transition and CCWG
> accountability proposals at roughly the same time and that it will
> forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA.”
>
>
>
> I read these two items as reflecting a commitment by ICANN to Congress
> and to the NTIA that they will forward the CCWG-A proposals “without
> modification” or “as is” to the NTIA when delivered by the CCWG. A
> fair reading of subsequent statements by the Chair of the Board (your
> redline FNs 40 and 45) is that ICANN’s testimony to Congress and its
> promise the NTIA (reflected in Strickling’s testimony) are no longer
> operative.
>
>
>
> From this I draw the same conclusions you have drawn – which is why I
> think this particular episode is worth noting. It also makes me
> wonder whether/if the CEO intends to revise his testimony.
>
>
>
> Again, a strong +1 for putting in one place a useful history that
> bears directly on the issues at hand.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>
> Link to my PGP Key
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz]
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 8, 2015 8:20 PM
> *To:* Accountability Cross Community
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to
> Dublin
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Apologies for the interruption to your inbox. I've been doing a bit of
> work trying to make sense of all the events in the ICANN
> accountability debate. I wrote up a chronology of that, which is
> available attached to this post. A blog post with my reflections is
> below.
>
>
>
> Whatever part of the community you are from, and whatever your view on
> the substance of the debates we are having in the CCWG, I hope you can
> stand up in support of the multistakeholder model at this challenging
> moment. There is a lot at stake if this accountability effort fails,
> and the risk of that is not high but it is increasing.
>
>
>
> See many of you in Dublin next week!
>
>
>
> cheers
>
> Jordan
>
>
> ICANN Accountability - the chronology and Dublin thoughts
>
> 9 October -
> at https://internetnz.nz/blog/icann-accountability-chronology-and-dublin-thoughts
>
> You’ve probably had an experience in your life of being part of a
> difficult or complicated project – sometimes things go into a blur, or
> after months or years you find it hard to remember the order of
> significant events.
>
> Well, the debate regarding ICANN’s accountability is nothing if not
> complicated (not to say difficult!). I’ve been a participant in it as
> a member of the Working Group representing country-code domains since
> December 2014, and even over not quite a year, things get a bit blurry.
>
> To help me, and possibly you, I decided to pull together a short
> chronology of some of the key milestones. Dates of proposals,
> significant moments in the project, and so on.
>
> You can review (and critique) the chronology here:
>
> .pdf
> <https://internetnz.nz/sites/default/files/2015-10-09-ICANN-accty-chrono.pdf>
> .docx
> <https://internetnz.nz/sites/default/files/2015-10-09-ICANN-accty-chrono.docx>
>
> I didn’t expect that seeing this story in one short place would
> trigger some new insights, or remind me of some old ones, but it did.
> Here are some of them:
>
> * *Astonishing progress:* since the end of last year, and the demise
> of ICANN’s resistance to a community-led accountability process,
> the Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) has made huge progress.
> It assessed previous suggested accountability mechanisms; built
> requirements for a new settlement; devised models that could
> deliver; took feedback in good faith and worked together to
> overcome problems exposed in public debate. The Second Draft
> Proposal of the group is workable, though it does not enjoy
> consensus in the ICANN community yet.
> * *Consistent resistance and delay:* the powers-that-be at ICANN
> have resisted community-driven accountability reforms throughout
> this process. The multi-month delay to establishing the CCWG
> speaks volumes. The group’s work would have concluded next week in
> Dublin if we’d had the few more months back in 2014. I say that
> not to lament it, but to make it clear where responsibility lies
> for the current time pressure. Hint: the CCWG isn’t responsible.
> * *The rightness of multistakeholderism: *the community has followed
> a true multistakeholder process. Compromise, diligence,
> thoroughness and a willingness to compromise and think outside the
> box – all these have been central to the work of the group. That
> work process is hard to maintain and has been seriously challenged
> by the ICANN Board alleging a right to insert “red lines” into
> part of the debate – on the critical matters of enforcement. Those
> interventions place the credibility of the multistakeholder
> process at risk. In doing so, the ICANN Board isn’t only putting
> the accountability reform process under pressure it doesn’t need,
> it is delaying the group’s ability to complete its task (others
> have more forceful views - see the note by William Currie, an
> Advisor to the CCWG appointed by the Public Experts Group last
> year, here
> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-October/006410.html>).
> The follow on consequence: the IANA Stewardship transition itself
> is delayed, a consequence only a very few people would celebrate
> (and I am not one of them).
>
> * *Proof of need:* looking over the short history of the current
> debate gives ample evidence of why the reforms demanded by the
> community are required. Without the spur provided by the IANA
> Stewardship transition, this opportunity would never have opened
> up. We should be grateful to the Obama administration for the
> chance provided to build a long term, responsible framework for
> ICANN accountability.
> * *Some welcome flexibility:* a year ago, if you’d thought you would
> hear ICANN saying it would welcome binding arbitration, the
> ability to remove Board directors, a community right of veto in
> bylaws changes – many would have stared at you and laughed. If
> you’d suggested a community group working in open multistakeholder
> ways could deliver a work output the quality the CCWG has matched,
> the same stares and laughs. But both have happened. Things have moved.
>
> Everyone involved with or watching this process will have different
> insights, or may agree happily or disagree sharply with mine. I offer
> them up in public as part of my own commitment to accountability: it
> is reasonable for people involved in the conversation to share their
> thinking. In any case, my own thought processes work best with
> dialogue – not with solitude.
>
> ICANN is on the verge of historic, meaningful and positive reform. The
> Numbers and Protocols communities, watching this process through
> gritted teeth and very keen for the transition to go ahead, can
> hopefully celebrate what is happening. With ICANN having a curious
> dual role for the Names community (policy forum and IANA functions
> operator), there has been no alternative to making accountability
> improvements now.
>
> (To my technical community friends - if there’s any doubt in your mind
> about why we need change – review the chronology, remember the
> pushback, remember what you guys faced early this year.)
>
> We’re all close to the end of the debate. You can sense it – proposals
> are crystallising, timeframes are compressing, volunteers are at the
> end of reasonable commitments of time and energy.
>
> The imperatives now are to see things through: to stick with the
> multistakeholder process that listens to all perspectives but gives
> nobody a right of veto; the accountability framework the community
> requires to accept the transition going ahead; and the changes to
> ICANN’s culture that will flow from a new accountability settlement.
>
> Dublin is a week away. The elephant in the room (the CCWG’s proposal
> and the ICANN Board’s counterproposal for the way to crystallise
> accountability powers) will need to be resolved, or eaten, or thrown
> in the ocean.
>
> My preference is of course for the product of the multistakeholder
> process, the model the CCWG has developed in public and with the
> involvement of all stakeholders. But unlike some others, I am not
> proclaiming bottom lines on any of the “how” – it is the “what,” the
> requirements and ability to meet them, that matter.
>
> The “what” is ensuring the Internet community, able to organise
> through ICANN’s open groupings, can hold a corporation with hundreds
> of staff, hundreds of millions of dollars, tight links with the
> American government, a monopoly ability to extract rents from the
> domain name industry, and a natural institutional desire to be as free
> of restraint as it can – can hold all that to account, given the huge
> imbalance of power, knowledge, resources that tilt the playing field
> of accountability entirely in ICANN’s favour.
>
> Beyond the "elephant," there are lots of other details that need to be
> sorted out. It all matters – NTIA have been clear the proposal has to
> be bullet proof.
>
> In the end though, if there isn’t an accountability settlement that
> achieves consensus, then there isn’t going to be a proposal bullet
> proof or not.
>
> No accountability proposal – no IANA Stewardship Transition proposal.
> No transition proposal – no transition.
>
> No transition? All those risks the transition is designed to head off
> come back to life. And the multistakeholder approach discredited to boot.
>
> Those are the stakes on the table as we head to Dublin.
>
> Two final thoughts: where there’s a will there’s a way. And as an old
> high-school teacher used to say to me, “not easy, not optional.”
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
>
> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
>
>
> /A better world through a better Internet /
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151010/76554619/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list