[CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation...

Dr Eberhard W Lisse el at lisse.na
Wed Sep 2 21:08:19 UTC 2015


Becky,

why?

Because it is crap. And it will not achieve any accountability.

el

-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Sep 2, 2015, at 18:54, 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



More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list