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

[Phil Corwin]

Thanks for that personal clarification, Bruce. If there is anything in the CCWG proposal that the Board believes could be against the GPI I would hope that would be shared ASAP.

I am giving the Board input full and unbiased scrutiny, as I presume everyone else is. Having said that, as this entire exercise is to preserve ICANN's MSM, and as this second CCWG proposal is very well considered output from a serious multistakeholder process, I believe that at this stage it deserves a high degree of deference. Which is not to say it is perfect, and what consensus plan ever is? But it is to say that comments which offer "perfecting amendments", that are offered in the spirit of improving the fundamentals of the proposal, should be embraced more readily than amendments in the nature of a substitute, which aim to remove a fundamental component and replace it with something quite different -- especially because accepting a substitute may well require the reexamination and reworking of multiple other related components of the Proposal. Regardless of whether the MEM is truly simpler than the SMM, accepting it may have complex ramifications for the overall Proposal. 

As you say, " The Board however has suggested an alternative which I think is worth considering", and I wouldn't disagree that it does. But an alternative is indistinguishable from a substitute and therefore I think it carries a higher burden of proof for acceptance.

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: Sunday, September 13, 2015 4:30 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN Board submissions to the CCWG public comment process

Hello Phil,

Speaking personally - I don't think there is anything inherent in the concept of a single member model that is against the global public interest.   I expect it could be refined to ensure an appropriate balance of roles - particularly between the public and private sector.

The Board however has suggested an alternative which I think is worth considering as it appears to be simpler and more consistent with the current structure - at least to me.

The question of timing of the transition is mostly to do with the political window of opportunity to consider a transition of the stewardship of the IANA function from one government to the multi-stakeholder community.   This is a big decision for the USA Government - and I think the decision is easier to make if there are no major changes in governance structure.    Ultimately though a key criteria will be that USA businesses and USA based civil society  are comfortable with the improvements in accountability that result from the work of the CCWG.

I realize that for most people that are citizens of the USA, and operate businesses in the USA - the USA stewardship is broadly a good thing.   Thus their focus is solely on accountability improvements, and the IANA transition is a distant secondary consideration.

For others that live outside of the USA and whose businesses are not primarily USA based - then the IANA transition takes on more importance.   The Board is trying to suggestion solutions that make that event more probable.   Ie we are looking at both IANA transition and accountability improvements, not one or the other.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin






-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com]
Sent: Monday, 14 September 2015 4:33 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN Board submissions to the CCWG public comment process

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.
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-----
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.