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

Sat Sep 5 16:01:45 UTC 2015

@Paul +1

Furthermore, we are locked into a purely vertical approach to the balance of power.

It is my view that in absence of the special role of the USG, we have to move on and also take a horizontal approach (Checks and balances) between the public interest and the business realities of the DNS after the new GTLD developments. And it is precisely there where a 2 layered approach to Corporate oversight has been a model well developed in the norther European countries

Policy Development & Compliance

(Public Interest)

Operations

(Security, Stability and Internet GROWTH)
Community Oversight: Advisory Board

(SOs/ACs)
Different representation models

GNSO
Contract Compliance

Operations oversight: Executive Board

NomCom elected Board members

IANA Functions
GDD

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
_____________________

email: crg at isoc-cr.org
Skype: carlos.raulg
+506 8837 7173 (cel)
+506 4000 2000 (home)
+506 2290 3678 (fax)
_____________________
Apartado 1571-1000
San Jose, COSTA RICA

> On Sep 5, 2015, at 7:46 AM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> 
> I agree with Avri completely.  And I, for one, do not want the transition
> badly enough that I would capitulate to the Board's effort to completely
> distort the proposed process.  Candidly, I find it challenging to respond to
> this blog post as it seems to so manifestly confuse ends and means and to
> treat the question of means as trivial.
> 
> I am delighted that the Board professes to share our end goal of
> accountability.  But characterizing its disagreement over how to achieve
> that as merely technical is, with due respect, sophistry.  Everyone supports
> world peace - but there is a world of difference between those who think it
> may be achieved through military deterrence and those who think it should be
> accomplished through diplomacy.  
> 
> The difference in proposed means could not be more stark.  The CCWG views
> the Single Member as a way of the community exercising direct control over
> the Board, with the IRP (and courts in California) as rare, infrequent
> backups to that relationship and with the community as the entity that has
> pre-eminence.  I support that vision.
> 
> The Board's proposal sees the IRP and courts as the resolvers of dispute
> with the Board retaining its preeminent position and the community reduced
> to an (as yet ill defined) role as complainant.  Anyone who has ever done
> litigation knows that being the supplicant makes you subservient - and that
> is the position the Board's proposal would put the community in.   The
> difference is not quite as stark as the one between realpolitik and
> diplomacy, but it is both substantial and transformative.  Any effort to
> paint agreement on the "ends" as "really near complete agreement" on the
> whole of the transition is misleading.  
> 
> I understand why the Board does not want to yield power.  That is precisely
> why it must.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] 
> Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2015 2:17 AM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog: Working Together Through The Last Mile
> 
> 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-mil
>> e#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-
>> mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-la
>> st-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-throu
>> gh-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-Sep
>> tember/005160.html>, notes around 10 points 
>> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-Sep
>> tember/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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150905/d0b44377/attachment.html>