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

[parminder]

On Monday 07 September 2015 05:34 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Hi Parminder,
>
> here is a proposal: Please come in. This is not a "revolving door", this is an "open door". 

Dear Wolfgang,

If you read our comments, esp thesubmission 19
<https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission19.pdf>below, it
explains at length our views on the 'openness' of the process. We regret
the kind of violence and disservice that the IANA transition process has
done the principles and practice of openness. It has given it such a bad
name that, and we do argue why, it actually would qualify to be a very
useful case study of how openness can be twisted and subverted to
partisan causes. Rather than mean 'equitable participation' 'openness'
is employed in the meaning of 'flexibility' whereby everything and
anything goes, and everything can be turned or bent to suit what clearly
are pre determined outcomes led by clear and rather obvious political
objectives, of those who exercise all the power in the current
dispensation, which is the US establishment, and the global big
business. So, no, the door is not 'open', it is 'flexible' and includes
and excludes at will. Great flexibility is not 'openness', it is a
device in the hands of the incumbents and the powerful to turn and twist
the process at will so that it goes in no other direction than what they
want it to go into...

To be more concrete, I and Just Net Coalition (JNC) have participated as
must as one could in this process - even though one of the major ways of
exclusion here is to take decisions behind such complex and time
consuming labyrinths that it is finally a race in which only the most
resourceful can stay on, and thus when the field is fully thinned out,
the real decisions gets taken.  But we still participated, although we,
like any self respecting group tying to represent the interests of the
marginalised, are extremely stretched in terms of resources . We
contributed at most if not all stages of the process, even as the
process was clearly headed where it seemed always destined to head.

Let me be even more specific, and I have said this before on this list
with no engagement. All the meetings that I have been to in India held
on the IANA transition subject, and these were all held by groups that
do regularly engage with ICANN, concluded on two issues as being crucial
in the IANA transition, (1) the jurisdiction issue, and (2) external
accountability (meaning external wrt to the groups that directly engage
inside ICANN system or form a part of it). The only survey held in India
on this issue - by a group that would be considered rather mainstream in
its views and has engaged with ICANN, also came to the same conclusion,
as these two issues being the most key.

Now, the question is, when a country with one seventh of the world's
population seems to be predominately of the view that IANA transition is
about these two issues, and I can bet (and, over discussions and
arguments, prove) that it is the same in almost all developing countries
which is 4/5th of the world, and also in many developed ones, outside a
narrow group of people who over the years have developed close
connections with the ICANN systems (again happy to discuss the validity
of this claim), how is that the IANA transition process comes up with
final proposals, that are supposed to represent the global public will,
but which fully bypass these two key issues. This the question that you
and other supporters of the process must address. The proof of the
'openness' cake is in its eating, which here is about how the process
throws up proposals that do not address what an overwhelming majority of
people in the world consider as the most fundamental one with regard to
oversight transition.

  The proposals on the table right now, and the contestations around
them, are all about shifts or balances of power within the 'ICANN
system', while those outside are hapless bystanders. Nothing can be a
better evidence of the closed-ness of the process than this.

In fact I only came to know very recently, and after having contributing
to the Just Net Coalition submissions, the absolutely horrifying fact
that ICANN board still holds a veto on the proposals going forward...
And these are supposed to be proposals about oversight over the ICANN
board! (Which is of course apart from the final veto of the US gov who
currently holds the power that is sought to be replaced.) Which century
are we living in with regard to legitimacy and appropriateness of public
governance processes! And then, Wolfgang, you speak of open doors and
openness. Here we have a process that is fully loaded with ICANN
insiders, with strong structural exclusions (our submission has called
it a 'process with glass walls, underground tunnels and invisible hands
<https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission19.pdf>' ) and at
the end of it ICANN and then US government still gets to decide if they
will let it pass or not...Even flexibility must have some limits. In any
case please do not call 'flexibility' by the good name of 'openness'.

regards, parminder



>
> Wolfgang
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org im Auftrag von parminder
> Gesendet: Mo 07.09.2015 12:16
> An: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog: Working Together Through The Last Mile
>  
> "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. " (Wolfgang)
>
> This is the only part in which I agree with Wofgang, the people inside
> the ICANN and those outside who are supposed to exercise "community
> power" (though the boundaries of what is claimed to be ICANN is never
> clear to me - with all this business of ICANN community and stuff)
> constitute a single group, as you say all 'sitting in the same boat',
> with very well-greased revolving doors between them. It is the people
> outside the boat - with its connotation of floating or sinking together,
> those standing on the shore who need to have the oversight over ICANN,
> not the insiders just trying to balance their mutual powers as is
> happening currently . It is for this reason that the IANA transition
> fails on the the most important political imperative in the current
> context whereby key technical functions need to be accountable to the
> global public. It even fails the key NTIA criterion of transition of
> oversight to 'global multistakeholder community'. No one has explained
> to me how is this narrow community coexistent with the global public or
> global multistakeholder community, and thereby how is the NTIA creteria
> met.
>
> Just Net Coalition has therefore rejected both the outcome and the
> process of the IANA transition proposals as per below submissions to the
> public comments process...
>
>
> https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission19.pdf
>
> https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission18.pdf
>
> parminder
>
> On Monday 07 September 2015 01:52 PM, "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)
>> .	Removal of the Board (Agreement with some minor specifications)
>> .	Fundamental Bylaws (Agreement)
>> .	Operational Plan (Agreement)
>> .	Budget (Agreement with some minor clarifictions)
>> .	Enforceability (Agreement)
>> .	IRP (Agreement)
>> .	Ombudsman (Agreement) 
>>
>> We have a disagreement with regard to the Sole Membership Model.  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. 
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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. 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.
>>
>> The Sole Membership Model, as it is proposed now, is still too vague, too unbalanced, too confusing. It is not yet ready for adoption. It needs a lot of more work. 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. 
>>
>> 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. 
>>
>> 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. 
>>
>> 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. 
>>
>> 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. 
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: 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
>> 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
>>> 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/20150909/f52a3986/attachment.html>