[CCWG-ACCT] Blog: Working Together Through The Last Mile

Sat Sep 5 11:04:12 UTC 2015

It is neither impressive nor unprecedented and hence rather not unexpected.

I am in fact on record with some of my colleagues (reading this) before the start of the deliberations that (something like) this would happen.

I however would put any blame squarely on our inept Co-Chairs, who have put the CCWG  into a poor negotiation position instead of developing a proposal that has "room".

Fortunately it doesn't affect me much as there is nothing in the proposals for ccTLD Managers, and as such I refuse to be bound by any of it anyway, never mind the fundamental question touched on by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Alberta), what it is we are dealing with.

greetings, el

-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Sep 5, 2015, at 07:17, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The effort to spin the replacement recommendation as just
> operationalization is impressive.
> 
> I do not understand the references to capture unless they mean capture
> by the community from the Board.  I suppose that from their perspective
> the CMSM would appear to be capture in and of itself, as it gives the
> community a share of the power they now hold for themselves.  I think
> any discussion of capture that goes beyond FUD, needs an analysis who
> who has captured the current ICANN model.  Capture is always an
> interesting topic because it often means: "who is trying to share my
> power now?"  I am all for opening up the discussion to the power
> anlaysi, current, potential and likely.
> 
> Additionally, I do not understand this statement:
> 
>> where the current proposal still warrants much detail that may not be
>> achievable
> 
> While it is true that is needs a bit more detail, though perhaps much
> less that is being claimed - until it is time for implementaton, it is
> not as bad as all of that.  What do they mean that an adequate level of
> detail is not achievable? Though I have learned that if someone does not
> wish to accept a proposal, it can never have enough detail. 
> 
> I think we are facing a critical moment in this transition where we, as
> a community, will have to decide whether we want the transition so badly
> that we are willing to surrender and let the Board have complete control
> without any possibility of ever being subject to oversight ever again. 
> The transition is the time to switch from NTIA oversight to community
> oversight.  If this is not possible, then perhaps the transition should
> not go forward.
> 
> We need to consider this turn of affairs quite carefully.
> 
> 
> avri
> 
>> On 04-Sep-15 15:53, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
>> Original
>> link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile
>> 
>> 
>>  Working Together Through The Last Mile
>> 
>> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#>
>> 
>> I'd like to thank everyone who has participated in both the CCWG
>> briefing to the ICANN Board
>> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56132981>,
>> and the CCWG and ICANN board dialogue
>> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56133316>.
>> All of our dialogues over the past months have been illuminating,
>> challenging and in my opinion, an important and true testament to the
>> multistakeholder model as we work toward the IANA Stewardship Transition.
>> 
>> */We support the important improvements for ICANN's accountability
>> contained in the CCWG-Accountability's 2nd Draft Proposal. We endorse
>> the goal of enforceability of these accountability mechanisms, and we
>> believe that it is possible to implement the key elements of the
>> proposal. We want to work together to achieve the elements of the
>> proposal within the community's timeline while meeting
>> the NTIA requirements./*
>> 
>> As we enter the final days of the Public Comment period, the Board
>> wants to be completely clear on our position. We are in agreement on
>> key concepts set forward in the CCWG's proposal, for example:
>> 
>>  * Fundamental bylaws.
>>  * Specific requirements for empowering the community into the bylaws
>>    adoption process.
>>  * IRP enhancements.
>>  * Board and director removal.
>>  * ICANN's mission and core values.
>>  * Strengthening requirements for empowering the community in the
>>    budget, operational and strategic planning process.
>>  * The incorporation of the Affirmation of Commitments Reviews
>>    intoICANN bylaws.
>>  * Community ability to enforce the accountability mechanisms in the
>>    bylaws.
>> 
>> We have suggestions on how these could be operationalized. With
>> regards to the mechanisms for community enforceability, where the
>> current proposal still warrants much detail that may not be achievable
>> we have a suggestion on how to deliver on it in a stable way, as
>> increased enforceability must not open up questions of, for example,
>> capture or diminishing of checks and balances.
>> 
>> Let's work together on operationalizing the above principles on which
>> we agree. Once again, we are committed to providing more detail on how
>> these ideas can be operationalized in a way that they can be
>> implemented within the community identified time frame for the
>> transition, as well as have sufficient tested grounds to not result in
>> unintended consequences.
>> 
>> During last night's discussion we shared this feedback. It was a lot
>> of information to digest in a call (notes around opening remarks
>> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-September/005160.html>, notes
>> around 10 points
>> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-September/005161.html>),
>> and we appreciate everyone giving our advice consideration. We are
>> committed to submitting our comments into the Public Comment process
>> in the next few days, and we look forward to the working with the
>> community on further details.
>> 
>> It is critical that we work together to build enhanced accountability
>> forICANN and continue to refine and flesh out details of the
>> impressive work already done by the community and complete
>> the IANAStewardship Transition.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community