[CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider

[Chris Disspain]

Hi Nigel,

Just landed in the U.S. so will respond as soon as I can. 

Meanwhile, a question for you. What are your thoughts on the current CCWG proposal? Would you sign off on it?

Chris Disspain
CEO - auDA

> On 20 Sep 2015, at 19:40, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:
> 
> Nice try. But I'll bite anyway . . .
> 
> ________________________
> 
> Perhaps.
> 
> I can see nothing that THAT IS DESIGNED TO lead to the perception that the board disagrees with the strategic accountability goal.
> 
> But plenty that raises the suspicion that it is designed NOT to lead to that perception.
> 
> What I find interesting is that the Board, instead of merely pointing out the disagreements or potential workability issues with the CCWG's plan, has put together its own competing bid
> 
> Why did you buy a dog, if you are going to bark yourself?
> 
> THIS is one of the things that leads me to the "history repeating itself" suspicion.
> 
> Because the next thing we will be told:
> 
> "We have to do this (insert defective plan of your choice here), because there is no time to do anything else, and if we wait any longer, transition will never happen because (election/regime change)".
> 
> The problem is as I see it is this.
> 
> Once the transition happens, there is no incentive for anyone to fix anything that we don't like now.
> 
> ICANN will, in law, simply be a private company, entirely owned by its Board.
> 
> 
> Nigel
> 
> 
> 
>> On 20/09/15 09:46, Chris Disspain wrote:
>> Hello Nigel,
>> 
>>> ......the perception that ICANN ("the corporation") seems to be positioning itself as in disagreement with the strategic goal of ensuring the corporation becomes (I was going to say 'remains' but that's entirely inaccurate) accountable to the people it was designed to serve.
>> 
>> 
>> I can see a number of examples of the board, as part of the community, disagreeing with specific aspects of the CCWG proposals but I can see nothing that might lead to the perception that the board disagrees with the strategic accountability goal. Unless, of course, the mere disagreement on a specific aspect is to be taken as evidence of that.
>> 
>> Could you perhaps provide some indications of what might be leading you to your perception?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Chris
>> 
>>> On 20 Sep 2015, at 18:35, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Bruce
>>> 
>>> Here's my impression of where the Board is at.
>>> 
>>> I am starting to get the perception that ICANN ("the corporation") seems to be positioning itself as in disagreement with the strategic goal of ensuring the corporation becomes (I was going to say 'remains' but that's entirely inaccurate) accountable to the people it was designed to serve.
>>> 
>>> I don't see much evidence of the "we are all ICANN" tree-hugging that, at least, to some extent, is required from time to time in the organisation's history.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In the last 10 years I've become able to argue the finer points of legal construction with the best of them, but that's not what, I feel, is needed now. But that's what seems to be going on. I feel ICANN's legal advisers are following their normal instincts -- "protect the client" -- and the client is seen to be Board/CEO/Staff and the status quo, not the "wider ICANN".
>>> 
>>> I'm willing to be proved wrong, (or as a judge might say: 'I'm prepared to listen to argument on that point') but I think that, on current perceptions, that is an uphill road.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 20/09/15 09:18, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 20/09/2015 00:48, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
>>>>>>> Except that the Board disagrees with our proposal to extend
>>>>>>> access to the IRP to all materially affected parties.
>>>>> Where do you get that impression from our submission?
>>>>> 
>>>>> The current state of IRP is:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Any person materially affected by a decision or action by the Board
>>>>> that he or she asserts is inconsistent with the Articles of
>>>>> Incorporation or Bylaws may submit a request for independent review
>>>>> of that decision or action."
>>>> 
>>>> No, the current state of IRP is:
>>>> 
>>>> "Any person materially affected by a decision or action by the Board
>>>> that he or she asserts is inconsistent with the Articles of
>>>> Incorporation or Bylaws may submit a request for independent review of
>>>> that decision or action. In order to be materially affected, the person
>>>> must suffer injury or harm that is directly and causally connected to
>>>> the Board's alleged violation of the Bylaws or the Articles of
>>>> Incorporation, and not as a result of third parties acting in line with
>>>> the Board's action."
>>>> 
>>>> That effectively excludes non-contracted parties, who experience ICANN
>>>> policies "as a result of third parties acting in line with the Board's
>>>> action" i.e. when ICANN policy is applied to them by Registries.
>>>> 
>>>> For the IRP to be meaningful to domain registrants, "materially
>>>> affected" must include materially affected by an ICANN policy.
>>>> 
>>>>> In our submission the Board stated:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "The ICANN Board agrees that any person/group/entity materially
>>>>> affected by an alleged violation of ICANN's Bylaws or Articles of
>>>>> Incorporation should have the right to file a complaint under the
>>>>> IRP."
>>>> 
>>>> If the Board is willing to remove the offending qualification above,
>>>> then I am glad.
>>>> 
>>>> Malcolm.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>