[CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18

Eric Brunner-Williams ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Tue Oct 27 21:13:21 UTC 2015


Paul,

Earlier in the desultory discourse concerning this particular scenario 
you shared your preference -- "to strip the GAC of its privileged 
position" -- language you repeat in your note to Arun, and the list.

As the bylaws, from the original ones to the current bylaws, contain 
language of the form "There shall be a Governmental Advisory Committee" 
and additional language providing for notice and comment aka 
transparency and accountability -- your point would be that things have 
been rotten in Denmark* since Ira picked Michael's and Ester's names out 
of a hat.

Could any conceivable accountability mechanism ameliorate what you see 
as "a privilege given to no other advisory committee"?

Alternatively, would your passion diminish if the bylaws were amended so 
that one, or several, or even all of the bylaws advisory committees, had 
the same "privilege" to use your choice of words, as governments?

Is this about accountability, assuming there actually is a substantive 
transition, or is this just about the role of government?

Eric Brunner-Williams, a non-member participant
Eugene, Oregon

* A non-CCWG, non-ICANN reference.

On 10/27/15 1:35 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>
> Arun
>
> Don’t let them change your mind.  Though the GAC members may assert 
> othewrisie, your summary is accurate.  The GAC has reached consensus 
> that it should retain the unilateral ability to change its own 
> definition of consensus while at the same time agreeing that the Board 
> should continue to give the GAC’s consensus advice the same value it 
> currently attributes to consensus advice.  This is not “accepting” 
> Stress Test 18 it is deliberately avoiding the hard choice.
>
> The issue remains – will GAC advice continue to require Board 
> negotiation, a privilege given to no other advisory committee?  If it 
> will then will the GAC agree that it cannot unilaterally change the 
> definition of consensus?  I see nothing in the communique that 
> resolves that – nor any recognition by the GAC that all of the other 
> commenters in the public comment process have disagreed with its 
> position and supported the Bylaw modification that answers ST18. There 
> is only a recognition of the problem and a continued promse to “work 
> within CCWG.”  All that is well and good – but it doesn’t change the 
> issue which (save for  your inadvertent misattribution of Denmark’s 
> views) you  have correctly summarized.
>
> 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:*Arun Mohan Sukumar [mailto:arun.sukumar at orfonline.org]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2:12 PM
> *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community 
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18
>
> Hi Olga,
>
> This is the operative part of the Dublin communique on ST18.
>
> The GAC considered:
>
> 1. The need that each and every Advisory Committee ensures that the 
> advice provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the 
> Committee;
>
> 2. The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its 
> own autonomy in its definition of consensus;
>
> 3. The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice;
>
> .... the GAC agreed to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18...
>
> These 3 options considered by the GAC are as different as chalk and 
> cheese. What might an objective analysis of them be?  If, as Greg 
> says, the issue is settled, why didn't the GAC simply accept the 
> stress test?
>
> I have no fight in this either, so I'm very much looking to hear a 
> more informed take on the Communique.
>
> Best,
>
> Arun
>
>
> -- 
>
> Head, Cyber Initiative
>
> Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
>
> http://amsukumar.tumblr.com <http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/>
>
> +91-9871943272
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Arun,
>
>     This is not my fight, but I don't understand your position.  Your
>     reliance on the 3 March 2015 email is incorrect on its face -- it
>     does not say that Denmark opposed Stress Test 18.
>
>     In any event you have the email intervention from Finn Petersen
>     (signed "GAC - Dk") asking you tor correct it.  I don't think you
>     need any further requests from Denmark to correct your article. 
>     It would be the responsible thing to do.
>
>     If this remains uncorrected, in combination with the passage that
>     Olga Cavalli quoted, it gives the appearance that your article is
>     a stick stirring the ashes, hoping to rekindle a fire that has
>     gone out, rather than a serious piece of reporting or analysis.  I
>     hope that you did not intend to be a pyromaniac -- it would be a
>     waste of your time and skills, and counterproductive in the larger
>     scheme of things.
>
>     Greg
>
>     On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Arun Mohan Sukumar
>     <arun.sukumar at orfonline.org <mailto:arun.sukumar at orfonline.org>>
>     wrote:
>
>         Thanks Greg - I would need to link to an e-mail intervention
>         from DK or GAC meeting transcripts (when Dublin ones are out)
>         to make this correction. Saying this post the article's
>         publication is not quite the same.
>
>         Best,
>
>
>         -- 
>
>         Head, Cyber Initiative
>
>         Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
>
>         http://amsukumar.tumblr.com <http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/>
>
>         +91-9871943272 <tel:%2B91-9871943272>
>
>         On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Greg Shatan
>         <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>             Arun,
>
>             I just read the email you referred to.  It does not
>             support the proposition that Stress Test 18 is
>             unacceptable to Denmark, or even that Denmark has a
>             position on Stress Test 18.  It is a fairly nuanced and
>             non-dispositive email, contributing to the overall
>             discourse at the time it was written.  Furthermore, it was
>             written 3 March 2015, which in "CCWG time" is several
>             millennia ago -- a further reason not to rely on it as a
>             statement of "position" in late October.
>
>             I suggest that you do not need to wait for further
>             instructions from Denmark in order to correct your piece,
>             especially since Denmark has already told you in no
>             uncertain terms that "your statement concerning Denmark is
>             wrong!!!!"
>
>             I look forward to reading the revised version of your article.
>
>             Best regards,
>
>             Greg Shatan
>
>             On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Arun Mohan Sukumar
>             <arun.sukumar at orfonline.org
>             <mailto:arun.sukumar at orfonline.org>> wrote:
>
>                 Hi Finn, this is what I went by:
>                 http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/2015-March/000071.html
>
>                 If the Danish position has changed, happy to correct.
>
>                 Best,
>
>
>                 -- 
>
>                 Head, Cyber Initiative
>
>                 Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
>
>                 http://amsukumar.tumblr.com <http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/>
>
>                 +91-9871943272 <tel:%2B91-9871943272>
>
>                 On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Finn Petersen
>                 <FinPet at erst.dk <mailto:FinPet at erst.dk>> wrote:
>
>                     Dear Arun,
>
>                     Thoughts - here is one!
>
>                     You write "Several countries, notably Brazil,
>                     Spain, Denmark and Argentina, see the proposed
>                     modification as unacceptable."
>
>                     Why did you include Denmark in the group of
>                     countries that oppose ST18  - your statement
>                     concerning Denmark is wrong!!!!
>
>                     Please correct this.
>
>                     Best,
>
>                     Finn, GAC - Dk
>
>                     Sendt fra min iPad
>
>
>                     Den 27. okt. 2015 kl. 17.42 skrev
>                     "arun.sukumar at orfonline.org
>                     <mailto:arun.sukumar at orfonline.org>"
>                     <arun.sukumar at orfonline.org
>                     <mailto:arun.sukumar at orfonline.org>>:
>
>                         CCWGers, plugging here a post I wrote on
>                         discussions around Stress Test 18.
>
>                         http://blogs.cfr.org/cyber/2015/10/27/governments-v-icann-the-last-battle-before-the-iana-transition/
>
>                         Thoughts welcome!
>
>                         Best,
>
>                         Arun
>
>                         Sent from my iPad
>
>                         Head, Cyber Initiative
>
>                         Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
>
>                         http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/
>
>                         Ph: +91-9871943272
>
>                         _______________________________________________
>                         Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>                         Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>                         <mailto: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
>                 <mailto: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/20151027/6c2b0a51/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list