[CCWG-ACCT] ICANN Board submissions to the CCWG public comment process

[Phil Corwin]

Thanks for these, Bruce.

I've just completed an initial and by no means complete review of the four documents.

While the 81-page Matrix and Notes document contains a great deal of detail, I did not find a single provision of the CCWG proposal, including the Single Member Model, being identified as something which, if implemented, would be regarded by the Board as "not in the global public interest". That is the standard for triggering consultation between the Board and CCWG if anything in the submitted final report is perceived as such.

The Board has proposed the MEM as an alternative to the CCWG's proposed SMM because, as stated in the Summary of Board Input, it perceives that the SMM is " more restrictive to a set of members, and potentially more prone to capture if not tested appropriately", "may result in a change in balance of power in ways that cannot be predicted", and creates " an increased risk of budget paralysis and instability". 

Yet that document goes on to state, " We believe that if the Sole Membership Model is the only proposed path forward, it may be prudent to delay the transition until the Sole Membership Model is in place and ICANN has demonstrated its experience operating the model and ensuring that the model works in a stable manner." That would seem to indicate an ultimate willingness to accept the SMM, but only if the transition is delayed for some period of time. (For the record, I agree with the views of others like Jonathan Zuck that if we must choose between inadequate accountability enhancements and a transition by 9/30/16 versus adequate enhancements and a delayed transition, we should opt for the latter. That being said, I am not at this time endorsing the Board's view that adoption of the SMM requires such a transition delay.)

So, my question is (and I realize that this is for the entire Board to answer by consensus, and not for you alone), does the SMM or any other part of the CCWG Proposal constitute something the implementation of which would be regarded as "not in the global public interest"? I think the answer to that question will be quite important to the CCWG as it reviews all the comments received on its Proposal, including that of the Board.

Thanks in advance, and best regards,
Philip



Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC
 
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey


-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 4:03 AM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN Board submissions to the CCWG public comment process
Importance: High

Hello All,

For ease of access, attached are the documents posted to the public comment forum.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin



-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.