[CCWG-ACCT] Where do we stand?

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

James,

you may have point here.

In the ccNSO there is no multi-stakeholder process nor a bottom up
process.  Nor can there be, nor should it.

There is only a finite number of ccTLDs which can at the most double
with the IDN and not all of them (or rather their Managers) are
members of the ccNSO.

So that part of the process would be stakeholder (and not
multi-stakeholder).

And as all ccTLD Managers are all equal in the ccNSO it's not a
bottom-up process.

But then there is hardly any process in the ccNSO anyway.


The Board also may have a point about representation, when I for
example look at the CCWG's inner workings (or failings).

Very few individuals participating and of those few many participate
a lot.

>From where I am sitting, industry is calling the shots.  From the
bottom-up.  All the way.

el



On 2015-10-12 13:21, James Gannon wrote:
> George,
> 
> 
> Thank you for your thoughts.  One question that comes to mind is
> how then does the board reconcile the issue of current consensus
> policy as defined through the bottom up multistakeholder process
> in the ASO, GNSO and ccNSO with its apparent mistrust and concerns
> over the governance an structure of the current SO's.
> 
> 
> Jeff Neuman touched on this in his email to the list last week,
> some selected quotes below (Links to his full post below).
> 
>     "
> 
> If the ICANN Board is basically saying that the community is not
> sufficiently representative for purposes of holding ICANN
> accountable, then how can they ever argue that the community is
> sufficiently representative to produce a consensus of Internet
> stakeholders for the purpose of developing Consensus Policies.  I
> have never heard the Board before make that argument...that it
> could not take a proposed policy and impose it on the contracted
> parties because they did not believe the community was
> sufficiently representative.
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> You shouldn't be able to argue that the community is sufficiently
> representative for one purpose (Consensus Policies), but not for
> the purposes of holding itself accountable
> 
> "
> 
> 
> If this is the position of the board then we are opening serious
> and dangerous debate.
> 
> 
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-October/006324.html
> 
> 
> -jg
[...]

-- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/