[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in

[James Gannon]

Seun,

So basically its our fault and we didn’t follow through on the other options that were clearly the right ones because the board agrees with them (In part) now? So lets just let the adults (Board, Lawyers, CEO) figure it out? I’m sorry if thats not the right characterisation but thats certainly the undertones in some of the comments that I have been hearing.

The CCWG arrived at the powers, the model, the enforcement criteria, the stress tests and the proposal through a bottom up process where everyone looked at the options in front of us and through sweat and tears came to an agreed proposal for all of the above. I think to reduce all of that work down to something that can be turned over and replaced by a new model with less enforceability less power and less accountability at the last hurdle is to disregard the amount of work and consensus that was found during the process.

There are a huge amount of details to be worked out in the counter-proposal (Which personally I still feel it is) that were the subject of weeks and months of discussions and debate and consensus building to get tour version of a proposal. The communities version. And let us remember that the board is one stakeholder amongst many, all of which will offer input that needs to be examined and cross referenced against our community proposal. And I think that yes we do have areas that we need to improve upon, and we will do so taking the best parts of the input from every stakeholder who has submitted comments. We can then be assured that we are travelling the right path and that the outcome of the CCWG will be well considered and reflective of the community collective intelligence.

In my comments on the proposal I said:

"The group should be proud of the work that we have achieved to date and hopeful for the work to come. When you can say that you have sat down at a table with human rights activists and intellectual property lawyers, governments and civil society groups, left wing think tanks and right wing think tanks, academics and business owners and that we have created something that reflects the opinions of everyone, that is in my opinion the most powerful proof of the ability of the multistakeholder process to excel in even the most challenging of circumstances.”

And I stand over that, I think that the current proposal is an amazing example of what the multistakeholder process can achieve, but if we allow ourselves to be derailed from the path that we have finally agreed upon at the last minute we are throwing out the prime example that we have ourselves set for the broader community. Do we need to tweak aspects and flesh out other details? Of course! Do we need to take the boards position on board? I would certainly hope so.
But do we need to stand aside and accept a model that is in my opinion directly at odds with the consensus of the community? I will be horribly disappointed in all of us if we do.

Don’t let us fall at this last hurdle, lets keep going in the spirit of cooperation and consensus that we have been for months now and try and come to a place where we have communicated why we have chosen the model, the enforcement mechanisms and the core values of a future ICANN to all stakeholders and show why we believe that as the reflection of the communities will the current proposal is the best path forward.

-James G

On 12 Sep 2015, at 02:39, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:


Hi Jordan,

I don't think there is so much details to develop than what we currently have with the sole member (which by the way also requires a lot of details).

I think the main question we need to ask the CCWG legal is whether the leadership of the SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal standing under the California law. Every other aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and just the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is what lawyers needs to come in on.

Perhaps it's also good to note that what is being proposed by board has been discussed one way or the other in the past but somehow we did not follow-up on the thoughts up.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.

hi all

You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which have now been lodged:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.html

I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo on the MEM.

It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into account as we refine the proposal.

An initial observation - there is a lot of detail that would need to be developed if the alternative proposal was to be complete enough to undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan.

Happy reading!

Cheers
Jordan


--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity


_______________________________________________
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/20150912/1ff88b2e/attachment.html>