[CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin

[Phil Corwin]

+1

The original impetus of this whole transition effort was to save the MSM as embodied within ICANN in the wake of the Snowden revelations. 

The MSM is weakened, not saved, by rejecting and rewriting its output.


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 Paul Rosenzweig
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 9:18 PM
To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Accountability Cross Community'
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin

And that, it seems to me, Bruce, is at the nub of the problem.  In theory, the Board has committed to transmitting whatever the CCWG submits, but in reserving the right to negate what has been submitted with its own comments (which would, in effect, kill any proposal) it takes away with the left hand what it gives with the right.  It is, as EL says, now down to who blinks first, it seems.

More to the point however, whenever the Board says the first part ("we will submit whatever we get") without also saying the second part ("but we reserve the right to countermand that submittal with comments") it is misleading.  Many in the community read the "we will submit" as an endorsement of the CCWG process without limitation.  Leaving out the critical limitation makes statements incomplete and adversely effects communication and expectation.  Thus, the Board's promise in Buenos Aires was read as more palliative than it actually is because of its reserved powers.

In addition, when someone (like Senator Thune) asks the question from a practical perspective ("will the board accept") then leaving out the caveat is an omission that affirmatively obscures the reality.

And then, there is the last sadder point:  Which is that the Board's reservation of a right to comment even after it participates in the process and, hypothetically, has the community reject its concerns reflects a distrust of the MSM and a paternalistic attitude that suggests to me all sorts of inadequacies.  If the Board's conclusion is true, then ICANN is not fit for the transition.  If it is false, then the Board misreads the community badly.  Either prospect is daunting

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig 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


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au] 
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 9:21 PM
To: Accountability Cross Community
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to
Dublin

Hello Mike,


>>  Are you going to forward them promptly, or follow the Charter and the
Resolution of 10/16/14?

We will do both.

If there is any disagreement - we will include that in a note to the NTIA
along with the ICG and CCWG Proposals, and then initiate a dialogue with the
CCWG.   We will advise the NTIA of the outcome of any such process.   The
NTIA could either wait for the process to conclude, or it could be that the
NTIA decides that the area of disagreement is not material to the IANA
stewardship.   I don't wish to speculate, that is for the NTIA to decide.
The aim clearly is to develop a proposal that has broad support, and avoids
the need for any follow on process.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin 

_______________________________________________
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

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4435/10780 - Release Date: 10/08/15