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

Tue Sep 8 21:49:55 UTC 2015

Would the smaller group chats on specific topics help, as suggested on the
call today?

J

On Wednesday, 9 September 2015, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:

> All,
>
> I think Roelof makes some good points but then I would wouldn’t I.  I have
> been speaking to a number of CCWG folks to try to at least bridge the gap
> between the perceptions of the Board and the perceptions of the CCWG. If
> anyone has any ideas how we can do more of that I think it would be most
> helpful.
>
> I note for example Greg’s email on response to Roelof about
> participation. I’m clear that the Board is participating and not
> intervening. What would help to delver that message to the CCWG?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Chris
>
> On 9 Sep 2015, at 02:53 , Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl');>> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Below I pasted some quotes from this thread. And I cannot but wonder. What
> are we getting so wound up about? Did we really expected a “yes, perfect,
> let’s implement this straight away”?
> But what makes me wonder most is why, for heaven’s sake, do we see the
> board as a unity of ill-doers?
>
> The board members that have participated in our work are individuals
> that I hold in high esteem. Quite a few of them tutored me when I entered
> this miraculous world of ICANN quite a few years ago.
> They gave me different angles and insights, pointed out different possible
> views and were open to discussion, disagreement and new ideas. And were
> tirelessly working to improve the way we work for the benefit of the global
> internet community. And most of them did not change a bit after they
> decided to help us all forward even more, make a personal sacrifice and
> join ICANN's board.
>
> In my opinion, there’s no collective single opinion in any wrong direction
> in this board. There is however, a collective intellect and a level of
> individual integrity and selfishness that one does not easily find in
> executive structures. They deserve our respect. Which, no, does not mean
> that we cannot have different opinions.
>
> When Steve Crocker writes:
>
> *"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.”*
>
> he in my opinion sends a very clear message that we should happily
> receive, as he commits the board. Let’s await the promised details of their
> ideas and keep engaged.
> Why should we want to send messages like the following, what do we hope to
> achieve? Frustrate the process to a halt?
> Read the quotes below, and note the interpretations of what was read or
> heard: as in “while you say, …. I see…”, “when you say, … you mean.."
>
> *"While you say the the Single member is just a implementation issue, I **see
> you attacking one of the fundamental principles, in fact the **keystone
> of the CCWG proposal."*
>
> *"I see in the Board's response a fear of the community and of the all
> the **bad things we might do if we were not kept tightly in check"*
>
> *"It should not come as a surprise that ICANN's current structure does not
> want changes. Nothing is more natural in a change process than for those
> who see some loss of control or authority to oppose it. It is a very
> natural human reaction."*
>
> *"for too long ICANN the corporation has operated according to the
> priorities of the legal dept, and especially Jones Day, with the
> board-staff simply taking direction from its lawyers (in-house and
> out-house), putting the corporation first and the community last" *
>
> *"When you say you agree to a thing in principle you mean that you have
> not the slightest intention of carrying it out in practice."*
>
> *"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."*
>
> *"I understand why the Board does not want to yield power.  That is
> precisely **why it must."*
>
> *"The effort to spin the replacement recommendation as just **operationalization
> is impressive."*
>
> *"not surrender and let the Board have complete control **without any
> possibility of ever being subject to oversight ever again"*
>
>
>
> Let’s all sit back a bit and reflect. On ourselves…
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Roelof Meijer
>
>
>
> SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE
> NETHERLANDS
> T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05
> roelof.meijer at sidn.nl
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','roelof.meijer at sidn.nl');> | www.sidn.nl
>
> On 07-09-15 20:14, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>
>  on behalf of Avri Doria" <
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>
>  on behalf of avri at acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri at acm.org');>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> First, my perceptions are not colored by Trust.  I trust the Board and I
> trust that you are all well intentioned people who are doing the best
> you can for ICANN.  I believe that none of you has an ulterior motive of
> personal advantage for the positions you take.  I go so far in my trust
> of the Board members as being among those who do not believe that a
> Board member would ever take a position just because it would help him
> get elected and in the future would never believe that a Board member
> would change her position due to a concern with being removed from the
> Board.  I am sure that each and every Board member would resign from the
> Board if they believed their effect were deleterious on ICANN and the
> Internet.
>
> My issue has to with with different perspectives.  Perspective from the
> Board that holds all the power, and from the community that wishes to
> become empowered, at leas to a degree.
>
> While you say the the Single member is just a implementation issue, I
> see you attacking one of the fundamental principles, in fact the
> keystone of the CCWG proposal.
>
> I see in the Board's response a fear of the community and of the all the
> bad things we might do if we were not kept tightly in check.  I think
> this is problematic and may be a barrier to finding a solution to the
> current impasse.
>
> Some inset comments below.
>
> On 07-Sep-15 04:22, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
> Hi Avri,
>
> it is not easy for me to disagree with you. In most of the areas where we
> work together we have consensus or rough consensus.  But here we have one
> of this seldom cases of disagreement. I recognize your statement but I am
> asking myself whether it is grounded on facts or on mistrust?
>
> What are the facts? For nearly all CCWG building blocks we have an
> agreement:
> • Community empowerment (Agreeement)
>
>
> I do not see the Board as agreeing with the basic proposal.  Maybe it is
> a matter of degree. The Board wishes to empower the community to a lower
> extent than the community considers empowerment.  As explained by other,
> you want to give the community more appeal mechanisms, whereas on some
> fundamental issues the community requires decision making empowerment.
> The concepts are so far apart, it cannot be called 'agreement' in any
> straightforward definition of the term..
>
> • Removal of the Board (Agreement with some minor specifications)
>
>
> Sort of ok. I think there is a bit of very unflattering conjecture on
> the Board's part of a capricious and vengeful community.  Why do you
> fear us so?
>
> • Fundamental Bylaws (Agreement)
>
>
> Not really, the CCWG proposal required that the Community have a direct
> say on changes to fundamental bylaws and articles of incorporation.
> Raising the Board's threshold and consultations do not match the
> requirements at all.  The are qualitatively different proposals.
>
>
> • Operational Plan (Agreement)
> • Budget (Agreement with some minor clarifictions)
>
>
> How minor are those clarifications?  My impression in the meeting was
> that they, like many of the other 'minor' issues where actually based on
> fundamental disagreements.
>
> • Enforceability (Agreement)
>
>
> I think you make a mistake about this.  The Board seems to assume that
> we want to run off to court every time we are thwarted.  Nothing could
> be further from the truth.   The CCWG plan was designed to make going to
> court the end of a very long chain of other options that should not be
> necessary.  The Board seems to offer a fast path to court. The CCWG plan
> balances the empowerment of the community with the empowerment of the
> Board nd strengthened redress mechanisms. It creates a new participant
> in the checks and balances.
>
> • IRP (Agreement)
>
>
> Without allowing for binding decisions, it can't be called agreement.
>
> • Ombudsman (Agreement)
>
> We have a disagreement with regard to the Sole Membership Model.
>
>
> Which is the keystone of the proposal and the reason that the other
> parts of the solution would work.
>
> For me the remaining open issues can be solved by further intensification
> of the dialogue within the community including CCWG and Board members. We
> have enough legal advice from different perspectives. If needed, we could
> get a third legal advice. But at the end it is the community which has to
> make the decision.
>
>
> The community makes the decision?  I thought the situation here was that
> ultimately the Board would make the decision.  Had the community been
> making the decision, this process would have been like the CWG process.
> Once we would have finished the last comment period we would have
> submitted out proposal and then we could have moded on to the
> implementation phase.
>
>
> This is the last mile. It is very natural that in such a complicated
> transition in the final stage there are some remaining controversies. In my
> eyes, there are not 20 miles to go (as Becky has proposed). The main work
> is done. And it is good work, also thanks to the CCWG, to its co-chairs, to
> its members and to the input from the broader community. The whole process
> is a very encouraging example which shows how the multistakeholder approach
> works in practice. This is an important signal also towards the WSIS 10+
> Review process in New York.
>
>
> If the Board were closer to agreeing with the CCWG proposal, I would be
> able to agree.  But given the explanations we have had of the MEM and
> the Board's other possible solutions, I just do not see this.  To me,
> this looks like the morning of a multiday bike bike tour when a century*
> or two are left to the finish. But maybe it is more like a climb of
> Everest at the last stage - stage 4, but i have never tried that.
>
> (*century as in 100 km or miles - lets go with km, that is a little better)
>
>
> The reason why I have problems with the sole membership model is simple: I
> am in favor of a new mechanism to strengthen the checks and balances in the
> ICANN system to keep the board (and the other ICANN bodies) accountable to
> the community. But in my eyes the proposed Sole Membership Model  is
> untested, has a number of risks and is open for unintended side-effects.
>
>
> Whereas I see this as a fundamental check and balance element that
> compensates for the removal of ICANN's only external oversight.  An
> organization that removes formal external oversight needs a stronger
> notion of community oversight mechanisms.  The AOC reviews are a good
> start, but we have seen that not only do the recommendations sometimes
> get perverted in implementation (for example bylaws changes that made
> the IRP less useful rather than more so, as had been recommended by
> ATRT1) or rather lackadaisically as we have seen with ATRT2
> recommendations that are green lighted for someday over the rainbow.  As
> people pointed out to me frequently when I spoke of ATRT2
> recommendations, I mostly had to add: "but we are still waiting."
>
> You speak of untested models. The only model that has been tested is the
> current model without any changes.  And we have seen that this is a
> model that does nothing to curb the creative and spending exuberance of
> the Board.  It is a model that will not work without ultimate oversight
> somewhere.  This we can see strong evidence for.  As we become free from
> government's ultimate control, we have to make sure that the community,
> one that is ever outreaching, has adequate oversight.  We need the SMCM
> in order to replace NTIA's ultimate responsibility. This cannot be a
> transition of the absence of oversight, but rather must be a transition
> to community oversight. It is this that I don't think the Board has
> accepted, and that is the crux of the matter. I think it is something
> that the CWG proposal requires.
>
> I am not convinced that the proposed voting mechanism is save enough
> against capture. I did not get a satisfying rationale why Advisory
> Committees are treated so differently in the proposed mechanism. I have my
> doubts how governments can be included in an appropriate way into this new
> mechanism without touching the well designed balance between governments
> and the non-governmental stakeholders in the ICANN ecosystem.  And there
> are other detailed questions.
>
>
> In one respect, I  agree with you.  I want all ACSO to have equal
> footing in the SMCM, but am in the minority on that one as I want its
> structure to resemble essence of the matrix balance that exists in the
> ICANN system architecture. Nonetheless, I do not see major opportunity
> for capture in the reference model as the initiation mechanisms for
> action and the vote thresholds are so high they do not facilitate
> capture. And the simpler we are allowed to implement, the less chance
> there will be for capture and other shenanigans.
>
>
> The Sole Membership Model, as it is proposed now, is still too vague, too
> unbalanced, too confusing.
>
>
> I disagree.  It is fairly direct and limited.  It has defined scope and
> functions.  The only fuzzy part is the voting thresholds and the
> modalities by which it worst internally, but that is an implementation
> detail.
>
> It is not yet ready for adoption.
>
>
> We disagree on this.
>
>   It needs a lot of more work.
>
>
> We agree on this, but those are implementation details.  That fact of an
> SMCM is not a mere operationalization detail as the Board seems to
> claim, but its implementation modalities may be.
>
> There are too many weak points. Go back to the table which was presented
> by Sidley in Paris where they showed us the plus and minus of the three
> models. It is true that the Sole Membership Model was the best of the three
> with more plus and less minus than the other two. But in total, all the
> three models were far away to meet the NTIA criteria, to be save enough
> against capture and to enhance ICANNs operational stability and
> security.  More innovation, more creativity and more careful analysis are
> needed. I raised my doubts in BA. I repeated this in Paris. And I raised my
> voice in the various telcos.
>
>
> I think you will find if you investigate it that many of the weaknesses
> of the model have been dealt with.  perhaps Sidley and Adler will help
> us with that.
>
>
> My first proposal was to dislink the discussion of the sole membership
> model from WS 1 and to have more time to go into the details of such a
> needed new mechanism in WS 2. This is obviously impossible. We have to
> propose something here and now within WS 1. I know that some CCWG members
> have mistrust into a long-term process and speculate that if they do not
> get it now they will get it never. I think this is wrong.  The process is
> unstoppable.
>
>
> Again you miss the point about the SMCM being the the keystone in this
> system construction.  Removing it requires going back to the beginning
> as it holds everything together.
>
> As soon as WS1 in complete, the process will be stoppable unless the
> community model has been implemented.  As long as the Board remains
> unchecked, and only accessible by appeal, a system that has failed at
> ICANN since its beginnings, there will be no way fro redress Board
> actiions.  If there is one thing ICANN has nearly always failed in it is
> redress mechanisms.   After all these years of failure in redress
> mechanism why should anyone be convinced on ICANN's future redress
> mechanisms.  Here we have proof of what doesn't work.  New RR, IRP,
> ombudsman roles roles &c, are the experimental part of this proposal. I
> have faith that with a SMCM we can insure that there are genuine
> improvements to the redress mechanisms, but in today's Board
> configuration, it is impossible to believe in redress at ICANN.
>
>
> My impression is that the majority in the community sees this indeed as an
> ongoing process of ICANNs improvement which will not stop with the IANA
> transition. In BA I argued that after the IANA transition (WS 1) and an
> enhanced accountability (WS 2) we will need to discuss a restructuring of
> ICANN to adjust its various SOs and ACs and CCWGs to the new challenges of
> a changing environment. I did call this “WS 3” and “ICANN 2020”. And I also
> argued that small steps are better than big jumps.
>
>
> Yes any organization that does not continually improve is doomed.  but
> we should get to a point of sufficient accountability in good time, and
> leave the future to necessary tweaking.
>
> I find the invention of WS3 to be the first step in the process of
> taking decisions out of WS2 and see it as the tip of the spear for
> thwarting future change. Anything hard, lets push it to WS2, and then to
> WS3...
>
>
> More or less we are witnessing now what Bill Clinton told us in San
> Francisco that getting Internet Governance right is like stumbling forward.
> As longs as it goes forward, it is ok. And what we are doing now is to
> prepare the next (small) stumbling step forward.  With other words, we have
> to be patient and to do now what can be done now and what is needed under
> WS 1 to allow the termination of the IANA contract. But this will not be
> the end of the story. It will go on.
>
>
> I am not quite the Bill Clinton fan you are.  And find that too much
> stumbling, as we often see among the Clintons, is not really the best
> example.  Yes, if we are about to fall, stumbling forward is preferable,
> but I would prefer to see us get our multistakeholder model beyond the
> stumbling phase.
>
> As for being patient, sorry, been too long coming.  We have been
> patient.   My experience is of at least of decade of 'soon come.'   For
> others it is  much longer.
>
> But if patient I must be,  I am ready to be patient now and wait for
> transition until we are ready.
>
>
> And here is a final observation.  To put it – like Greg – as a conflict as
> “Board on Top” vs. “Community on Top” is misleading. Both the members of
> the Board and the members of the CCWG are selected by the community. Both
> are accountable to the community. As I said in the chat during the recent
> telco we all are sitting in one boat (or in one car) and want to have a
> better, stable, secure, efficient and accountable ICANN with more (and
> stress-tested) checks and balances in the system.
>
>
> The politics of Tops and Bottoms is always tough unless there is real
> mutual trust of each party by the other. You claim that the community
> does not trust the Board, that may be the case among some parts of the
> community.  I claim that a far greater lack of trust is displayed by the
> Board for the community.  I think many of your comments are colored by a
> pervasive distrust of the community and its purported drive to capture
> and game.
>
> Once a community member becomes a Board member she adopts a new
> perspective and set of responsibilities.  This is what makes the Board
> another part of the community while not representing the community.  For
> a the Board to become a genuine member of the community, it needs to
> give up its role as benevolent despot and accept the need for the
> community to balance its power. ICANN needs a community that can check
> and balance the Board's unilateral power.
>
> The CCWG model defines a degree of power sharing between the two as the
> best solution for replacing NTIA oversight.
>
> avri
>
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>
>  im Auftrag von Avri Doria
> Gesendet: Sa 05.09.2015 08:17
> An: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community at icann.org');>
> Betreff: 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-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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>

-- 
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150909/92e2d9f4/attachment.html>