[CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation...

Wed Sep 2 21:48:06 UTC 2015

Why what Eberhard?  And the proposed alternative that does not have
multistakeholder support is better? Or because the status quo is
preferable to either?

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, 5:08 PM, "Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <el at lisse.na> wrote:

>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_wi
>>>ki
>>> 
>>>_Cry-5FWolf&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8Tj
>>>Dm
>>> 
>>>rxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kAchimQJKvlCHF6LPNxEvOmFpEfGLpHAa7WuLH3Lyj0&s=1QINYl
>>>b0
>>> 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_mailma
>>>n_
>>> 
>>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>>lU
>>> 
>>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kAchimQJKvlCHF6LPNxE
>>>vO
>>> mFpEfGLpHAa7WuLH3Lyj0&s=2Y-_rYGI4RDYkj-hU3DNhIh2u7pp9UsELserlE4sLvk&e=
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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=AwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=eocf2eu8-_Y11qHsQqL
>>hh2QNwi931grhpQGTMrmAuqU&s=lZF_qbkHFLLdn7eqUrnL_et0dx0TCdChdGd7ZzLNfjw&e=
>> 
>_______________________________________________
>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=AwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU
>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=eocf2eu8-_Y11qHsQqLhh2
>QNwi931grhpQGTMrmAuqU&s=lZF_qbkHFLLdn7eqUrnL_et0dx0TCdChdGd7ZzLNfjw&e= 