[CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment

Mon Sep 28 19:04:40 UTC 2015

Looking forward to the end-point of this 
exercise, each of the chartering organizations 
will have to decide whether to ratify the 
proposal. Speaking on behalf of the ALAC, we have 
already gone on record as endorsing certain 
options that are far from our preferred ones, but 
that we can live with and that we believe will 
leave ICANN in a better position than we are now. 
Each chartering organization will have to make a similar choice.

Ultimately, to put the recommended changes into 
effect, the Board, under the current Bylaws, will 
have to approve the changes, as that is the only 
way that the current Bylaws can be changed. 
Regardless of the amount of community support, 
they will not likely violate their fiduciary duty 
and approve changes that they collectively feel 
are not in the best interests of ICANN, its 
constituent parts, and the public interest.

In all cases, judgement calls will be involved.

Any possible outcome, other than deadlock, needs 
to satisfy both sets of constraints.

Alan

At 28/09/2015 01:44 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:

>I certainly respect the experience and 
>perspective of the Board.  On the other hand, I 
>am mindful of the fact that many participants in 
>the CCWG have been laboring in this field for a 
>lot longer than the average Board member – 
>indeed from the inception.  And, our views have 
>been informed by extensive public comments.  So 
>the experience and perspective of the CCWG – 
>both individual members and collectively – also deserves respect.
>
>We can’t view this as binary.  We must carefully 
>consider what’s best in all of the options on 
>the table, understand what is do-able, and 
>proceed from that point.  I do not see how we 
>could fulfill our obligations under the Charter 
>by simply acceding to the Board’s position.  Nor 
>do I think that is what the Board is demanding – 
>although I acknowledge the Board’s delivery sometime conveyed that impression.
>
>B
>
>
>From: Rudolph Daniel <<mailto:rudi.daniel at gmail.com>rudi.daniel at gmail.com>
>Date: Monday, September 28, 2015 at 1:11 PM
>To: James Gannon <<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>james at cyberinvasion.net>
>Cc: Avri Doria 
><<mailto:avri at acm.org>avri at acm.org>, 
>Accountability Community 
><<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment
>
>+1 James
>Community has journeyed too far to hang its head 
>...we may be at a critical moment in the m' stakeholder process.
>RD
>On Sep 28, 2015 1:01 PM, "James Gannon" 
><<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
>I would prefer not to throw away the 
>multistakeholder process in the name of the 
>transition. I don’t know if I’m alone in that 
>view but its certainly one I hold.
>
>-James
>
>
>
>
>On 28/09/2015 17:47, 
>"<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
>on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" 
><<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
>on behalf of 
><mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Avri
> >You may agree that the Board submitted the 
> results if its 17 years if implementation 
> practices and experience whereas each of us 
> have just expressed our individual experience  .
> >Let us not argue that but just agree that what 
> the Board suggested stemmed from facts and 
> figures in a more general than other facts and 
> figures submitted by individuals convoluted and 
> amalgamated in what CCWG suggested
> >Kavouss
> >
> >Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On 28 Sep 2015, at 18:31, Avri Doria 
> <<mailto:avri at acm.org>avri at acm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I disagree with the notion that the Board presents fact and the rest of
> >> the Community presents theory.  Many in the other parts of this
> >> community have been involved in the ICANN bottom-up multistakeholder
> >> process for as long as the Board members.  Some even longer with a
> >> greater degree of experience.   And though our view is not the view from
> >> the privilege of Board perspective, it is probably just as validly
> >> based on that which is the case.
> >>
> >> The Board's views are important, and based on their ability to affect
> >> the results of the community's work have a special role in our
> >> considerations.  But please lets not elevate their position to the one
> >> truth we must all recognize.
> >>
> >> avri
> >>
> >>> On 28-Sep-15 11:38, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> >>> Dear Ed
> >>> I always respect your views but this time 
> with a little bit if reluctance.
> >>> Board, s views contain a great degree of valuable importance as it
> >>> speaks for implementation of the idea whereas we purely were thinking
> >>> and discussing of almost theory.
> >>> Regards
> >>> Kavouss
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
> >>> On 28 Sep 2015, at 15:26, avri doria <<mailto:avri at ella.com>avri at ella.com
> >>> <mailto:avri at ella.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Or we may have to realize that the Board's fear of the community and
> >>>> the FUD about what we might do, is so great that they will never be
> >>>> able to accept a membership model. The historical and continuing
> >>>> aversion of ICANN's Board and legal advisers to the notion of
> >>>> allowing the community to have any kind of membership may just be
> >>>> part of its nature and something they are incapable of 'blinking'
> >>>> about. It may be the threshold ceiling this experiment in bottom up
> >>>> multistakeholder process can never move beyond. ICANN may, by its
> >>>> very nature and history, never be able to become fully what it
> >>>> aspires to be recognized as.
> >>>>
> >>>> It then may be up to the community to decide to take whatever crumbs
> >>>> of accountability we can get.  One thing I am certain of, one way or
> >>>> another, ICANN will come out of this process changed. It will either
> >>>> continue to lead in developing a true multistakeholder model. Or it
> >>>> may just settle into a slow decline as another organization that
> >>>> never lived up to its promise.
> >>>>
> >>>> avri
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -------- Original message --------
> >>>> From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <<mailto:epilisse at gmail.com>epilisse at gmail.com
> >>>> <mailto:epilisse at gmail.com>>
> >>>> Date:09/28/2015 8:15 AM (GMT-05:00)
> >>>> To: CCWG Accountability 
> <<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
> >>>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard 
> <<mailto:directors at omadhina.NET>directors at omadhina.NET
> >>>> <mailto:directors at omadhina.NET>>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment
> >>>>
> >>>> Ed,
> >>>>
> >>>> of course we must give special attention to the Board. Stare them in
> >>>> the face until they blink :-)-O
> >>>>
> >>>> el
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
> >>>>
> >>>> On 28 Sep 2015, at 06:27, Edward Morris 
> <<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>egmorris1 at toast.net
> >>>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Kavouss,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I personally attach a very hight level of  support to the Board,s
> >>>>> comments which stem from 17 years of valuable experience. While I
> >>>>> support and appreciate public comments but we should give special
> >>>>> attention to the valuable comments from the Board and should not put
> >>>>> those  comments in the sane basket of any other comment received
> >>>>> from individual .
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. I give no greater
> >>>>> weight to the comments of a member of the Board than I do to a
> >>>>> comment from  the least privileged amongst us. I give power to the
> >>>>> idea, not to the person or the organisation making it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ed
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>>>> 
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >>>>> 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ZafcqlbrSgE4Bd9g3x12aZFbXdcCnbzhUqPK9_CgRa0&s=6sqOTKdEGThwLylpF-f8f81F0ZzUG2OQke29-vDbztw&e=>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>>> 
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >>>> 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ZafcqlbrSgE4Bd9g3x12aZFbXdcCnbzhUqPK9_CgRa0&s=6sqOTKdEGThwLylpF-f8f81F0ZzUG2OQke29-vDbztw&e=>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >> 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ZafcqlbrSgE4Bd9g3x12aZFbXdcCnbzhUqPK9_CgRa0&s=q9uHMjXcPTo0Md_Zw_otWCUhKM3U4yNucYSxVB5IahE&e=>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> 
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >_______________________________________________
> >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.or 
> g>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>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/20150928/df3c26de/attachment.html>