[CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation...

[Greg Shatan]

My thoughts on this are aligned with Jordan, Jonathan, Malcolm, Kavouss,
Matthew, James, Steve, Avri, James, and Becky.

Or more succinctly, "+1."
Greg

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:

> I am puzzled by this debate, to say the least.
>
> We have developed a proposal using the bottom-up, multistakeholder
> process.  That process required us to wrestle with a lot of perspectives
> and opinions, to find solutions to address concerns, and to really come to
> grips with what the community agreed on.  The result was the single member
> model.  It isn¹t rocket science - it¹s a structure that is in use in many
> settings.  The concept has been thoroughly vetted by outside counsel, and
> ICANN¹s outside counsel has not identified a legal problem with it.
>
> What authority do we have for turning our back on the product of the
> multistakeholder process to embrace a different model at the 11th hour?
> Yes, of course we¹ve discussed the designator model, but it has not
> gathered the kind of support it needs to claim community support.  Rumors
> and anticipation of a negative response from the ³top² doesn¹t provide the
> kind of principled basis we would need to walk away from the output of the
> multistakeholder process.
>
> Yes, there is work to do - so what?  We¹ve all been killing ourselves for
> months to be true to the multistakeholder model.  Unless there is a
> fundamental flaw in the model developed by the community - which no one
> has identified - we should continue to build and perfect the community
> supported model.
>
> We should be proud of our work, not apologetic.  We should acknowledge
> that it is not complete - but we¹ve known that would be the case from the
> beginning.  Let¹s stop wringing our hands about the work to be done and
> just get on with it.
>
> B
>
>
> J. Beckwith Burr
> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
> Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  /
> becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9/2/15, 1:10 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> >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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki
> >_Cry-5FWolf&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDm
> >rxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kAchimQJKvlCHF6LPNxEvOmFpEfGLpHAa7WuLH3Lyj0&s=1QINYlb0
> >Cyx5rZXGuvsf4kTZwbvYSs1BfZUJ97LFUZo&e=  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
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
> >listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU
> >Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kAchimQJKvlCHF6LPNxEvO
> >mFpEfGLpHAa7WuLH3Lyj0&s=2Y-_rYGI4RDYkj-hU3DNhIh2u7pp9UsELserlE4sLvk&e=
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150902/eb562f1e/attachment.html>