[CCWG-ACCT] Your input needed - Doodle poll - Sept F2F

[James Gannon]

Hi Ken,
I think that there is a fine line here that the CCWG needs to navigate, and indeed that the board should be aware of.
There is a notable difference between the board exercising authority/veto/power over the work of the CCWG and the board giving input as an important stakeholder in the accountability process.

We should take the boards comments and eventual input into consideration in our work but given that the board is one stakeholder amongst many, if the boards final input does not align with the work of the CCWG and the vehicles by which the community has come to consensus on how to implement them then we need to move ahead with our work. As to the suggestion that the board believes that their approach is not one of a rewrite and is merely an alternative method of implementation I wouud suggest that many in this group had alternatives and ideas, and they were fleshed out and worked through systematically over the last number of months. The time for addressing the fundamental questions of how to enforce the powers that the community has enumerated was in the working groups over the last number of months with the community.

To come in at this extremely late stage, and to propose what many in the community consider a fundamental rewrite of the CCWGs proposal is not conducive to a strong relationship between the board and the CCWG. To many, rightly or wrongly it appears that the board wishes to impose a top down model of restructuring instead of engaging in the communities work over the last number of months in a constructive manner, we have on a number of occasions asked the board to genuinely participate in the CCWG to avoid exactly this scenario, and until the last short number of weeks we did not have that engagement at any meaningful level.

For the accountability proposal, and indeed the transition in general to be considered a representative multistakeholder bottom up work product then the wishes of the community as set out in the proposal must be respected by the board. If we deviate from that we have lost our way. I truly hope that this does not happen and that the board will recognise that the work of the CCWG is based on solid well researched foundations and based in sound legal advice. Please respect the communities collective intelligence and lets not go down the route that we did on the call last night of talking about false agreement on principals and “Lets let the lawyers go off and work this out for us”. Its undermines this whole process to belittle the work of the CCWG in this manner and I hope that this won’t be the approach that the CEO and the board takes going forward. Engage us in constructive dialogue and not slash and burn rewrites of the basic tenets of our proposal.

-James






On 3 Sep 2015, at 10:30, Salaets, Ken <ksalaets at itic.org<mailto:ksalaets at itic.org>> wrote:

James et al.:

I can't imagine how this development, i.e., the board seemingly exercising some semblance of authority over the broader community process, will not lead to renewed political turbulence in Washington.  Even if there is no particular leverage, the mere perception may well be enough kindling.

Of course dialog should continue among all stakeholders and interests including the board.  Even the slightest hint, however, that the public comment process is being bypassed or superseded by other dialogs/negotiations may trigger concerns of a lack of transparency and side-dealing, i.e., some of the very conditions that fueled the call for greater accountability in the first place.

Just thinking out loud.

Ken
ITI



On Sep 3, 2015, at 10:43 AM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:

As per the Doodle and last nights call

"The ICANN Board of Directors proposes that the CCWG-Accountability hold a public meeting in Los Angeles in late September to continue the dialogue with the Board on the CCWG proposal”

-James

On 3 Sep 2015, at 09:31, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <directors at omadhina.net<mailto:directors at omadhina.net>> wrote:

Oh, I forgot,

Abu Dhabi or Addis Ababa between Brussels and New York :-)-O

On 2015-09-03 09:22, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Alice,

we need to know where this will be done at the time the poll closes and
the date is fixed.

I propose one of the following venues: Windhoek (not entirely in jest
:-)-O), Amsterdam, Brussels, New York or Washington in descending order
:-)-O

el



On 2015-09-03 01:48, Alice Jansen wrote:
Dear all,
Please record your availability for a face-to-face meeting in September
(or early october) via this doodle poll
- *http://doodle.com/c8iexds666hv6ygt *
We would be very grateful if you could add you input by Monday, 7
September – 23:59 UTC.
Thanks
Best
Alice
[...]



--
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse 4-5, St Annes Walk
<Directors at omadhina.net<mailto:Directors at omadhina.net>> Alderney, Guernsey, GY9 3JZ
Omadhina Internet Services Ltd British Channel Islands
_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150903/dc57b3ef/attachment.html>