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

[Greg Shatan]

Lurking behind all this (in my mind) is Larry Strickling apparently saying
that he does not want to receive a proposal that does not have the support
of the Board.

That would make any proposal sent with a lack of support from the Board a
non-starter.

I could be misremembering, but I don't think I'm far off.

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:05 PM, avri doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> Agreed.
>
> The biggest threat to the model is showing icann to have been a broken
> implementation.
>
>
> avri
>
> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>
> Date:10/12/2015 9:43 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>, 'Bruce
> Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>, 'Accountability Cross
> Community' <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to
> Dublin
>
> +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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151012/adb9d9a7/attachment.html>