[CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation...

[Alan Greenberg]

I will try to address all of the points raised.

I am my colleagues had no illusions about how my message would be 
received. We are at a point where some of us feel that there are too 
many rough edges to get this proposal sufficiently done to allow it 
to meet what we believe are the NTIA criteria, in the time we have. 
So we were looking at alternatives, and this was one that seems to 
make some sense. If we are wrong and the current proposal can be put 
in shape, dandy. But I think it will be a tough haul.

It is not a magic bullet, and I agree that getting closure without 
going through another full comment period would be a challenge.

Regarding what does it simplify. Takeout the membership option 
removes a number of critical changes. Perhaps easy for the lawyers to 
draft, but a challenge to get right given the onerousness of not 
getting all of the details perfect. It removes the budget and plan 
veto (which I understand some consider mandatory) and that eliminates 
a large chuck of work. At the same time, it preserves most of the 
CMSM structure that we have fleshed out (but still need to specify 
processes in detail as we have heard from advisors and Board members.

I do not believe that CWG requirements are an issue. The IANA budget 
will be protected by Bylaw and that can still be done, including the 
community control over it.

The overall message I was trying to send is that after careful 
analysis of the 2nd draft proposal, I and we find a lot of problems 
that need to be addressed and are not at all convinced that we see 
how it can be done by Dublin. I felt I had an obligation to raise the 
issue publicly, regardless of the scorn from some.

As I already implied, if we are the only ones with concerns, then 
let's keep going forward with what we have, and hope that At-Large is 
crying wolf (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cry_Wolf for the 
cultural reference).

Alan

At 01/09/2015 10:26 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>The At-Large group advising on Accountability and IANA matters met 
>today (as we have been twice weekly for the last while). It is 
>becoming increasingly clearer that the CMSM model still has a LOT of 
>rough edges that need to be finalized prior to putting forward our 
>proposal as the accountability part of the IANA transition, and my 
>recollection is that in Buenos Aires we were told in no uncertain 
>terms that the proposal needed to be complete and fully 
>implementable prior to being accepted by the NTIA and if necessary, 
>Congress. I fear that the current plan will not meet that target.
>
>So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, 
>I am not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition.
>
>The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of 
>what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole 
>Designator (CMSD).
>
>Following the Buenos Aires meeting, and prior to the CMSM model 
>being introduced, many in the CCWG were willing to consider the 
>Empowered Designator model, and this is a variant that uses the 
>simplified CMSx structure but with the lighter-weight designator 
>mechanism which will be significantly easier to set up. It also 
>addresses the concerns of some with moving to a Membership model for ICANN.
>
>I am sending this on my own, but with the knowledge that the concept 
>had a lot of support in my community.
>
>Alan