[CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas

Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Mon Sep 28 22:26:19 UTC 2015 

+1 Totally agree.  As a lurker who has been trying to read everything, I 
find the language pretty opaque.  If ICANN addicts don't get it, 
outsiders have no hope.
Stephanie Perrin

On 2015-09-28 15:18, James Gannon wrote:
> This is solid advice. Everyone should read this and take it onboard.
> Thank you for this one Kieren.
>
> _james
>
> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf 
> of Kieren McCarthy
> Date: Monday 28 September 2015 20:06
> To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse
> Cc: Lisse Eberhard, CCWG Accountability
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas
>
> To get back to the initial theme of this email thread: communications.
>
> Yes, the CCWG report as it currently stands is severely lacking in 
> clear communications.
>
> I doubt that clear communications will resolve the current impasse but 
> I have yet to see a single situation where clear communications has 
> not helped.
>
> Here is my advice to this group, based on having been a comms 
> professional for 20 years.
>
>
> 1. Keep your report. It is how this group works. Trying to bend it 
> into clear communications for the rest of the world will be a tiring 
> and pointless task.
>
> 2. Write a second report specifically designed for non-ICANNers to 
> read. Think: Congressmen, your own senior VPs whose eyes rollover 
> whenever you mention the word "ICANN". Smart people who couldn't care 
> less about ICANN but do want to be up-to-date and informed about 
> important developments.
>
> 3. Create a sub-group of people who actually write those kinds of 
> reports for a living to produce the second report.
>
> 4. Here is what is missing in what the CCWG is currently proposing:
>
> * This is no clear rationale for why these changes are needed
> * There is no clear explanation for why these solutions were chosen
> * There is no clear explanation for what happens if these things 
> aren't done
>
> 5. Here are the components of the current CCWG plans that undermine it:
>
> * It is both too vague and too detailed
> * Too vague: the overall scaffolding is not explained sufficiently or 
> clearly.
> * Too detailed: no one but not one outside the 50 GNSO obsessives in 
> this world want anything to do with obscure voting procedures that 
> they will never participate in. And no one but no one wants to read 
> pages about the process you followed except in the most enormously 
> general terms.
>
> * It is too complex
> * If you want the internet community to override the Board, then it 
> needs to be clear to people outside ICANN how that works. Just imagine 
> a completely different organization.
>
> Imagine you are reading a report about how the car industry is allowed 
> to overrule the international body that regulates emissions. If you 
> are faced with a dozen pages over how a specific subgroup of the car 
> industry, under a weighted voting system, is able to overrule a 
> decision not withstanding a challenge from a specific group of plant 
> union workers who would then be expected to enter an as-yet 
> unspecified arbitration process whose final result would require a 
> separate process, also under weighted voting, that would reconsider 
> the results of the report and decides whether to empower a new group....
>
> You see that and you say: this is a mess and won't ever work.
>
> But if you read: an override would require all groups from the 
> manufacturers to the dealers to the pant worker union to agree... well 
> then you can have some confidence in it.
>
> The shorter version of this point is: the GNSO needs to pull its head 
> out its ass.
>
>
>
> Now to get to the nub of it:
>
> There are several very, very good reasons why there should be a 
> "member" of ICANN. Focus on them (at least in the second, clear comms, 
> report).
>
> Two of the biggest I would say are:
>
> * Without a member, the internet community will never be able to 
> legally separate IANA from ICANN. That is the one, single, 
> unquestionable power that the NTIA currently has: to cut that 
> contract. Under the Board's MEM plan, that unquestionable right does 
> not and will not exist.
>
> * Without a member, the Board can pass a two-thirds resolution to move 
> its headquarters to Beijing and there is nothing the rest of the 
> internet community can do about it. The Board's MEM approach is so 
> convoluted that it could be tied up in pseudo-legislation for the next 
> decade. The member approach provides a legal, unassailable right to 
> reject that and at the same time kick the Board off for good measure.
>
>
> These are clear scenarios that would currently never happen because 
> the NTIA is in charge. When the NTIA is gone, they have to become 
> impossible. And the member model is the clear path, written into 
> existing US corporate law i.e. not some special hodge-podge of ideas 
> dreamed up in the penthouse suite of an LA hotel.
>
> Tell that to Congress and then let ICANN Corporate explain why their 
> approach is better.
>
>
>
> * Last suggestion: stop calling it the "single member model". Call it 
> something that makes immediate sense to everyone and has a positive 
> feel to it. That way people can understand it. And you give the Board 
> a way to save face.
>
>
> Hope this is helpful.
>
>
> Kieren
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na 
> <mailto:el at lisse.na>> wrote:
>
>     Paul,
>
>     to be precise, categoric and emphatic, we want the reasons (WHY).
>
>     We have seen shared the understanding of WHAT the Board is saying.
>
>     And apparently we need to find out how to ask the Board, because
>     they seem to have issues with it.
>
>     el
>
>     -- 
>     Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
>
>     On 27 Sep 2015, at 15:15, Paul Rosenzweig
>     <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>     <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
>
>>     Yes oracle of Delphi.  What is the Board view?  Nobody asked you
>>     say.    We are asking now?
>>
>>     --
>>     Paul
>>     Sent from myMail app for Android
>>
>>     Sunday, 27 September 2015, 06:09PM -04:00 from Dr Eberhard W
>>     Lisse <epilisse at gmail.com <mailto:epilisse at gmail.com>>:
>>
>>         Than what is it, what you are stating?
>>
>>
>>         el
>>
>>         -- 
>>         Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
>>
>>         On 27 Sep 2015, at 14:14, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au
>>         <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aceo@auda.org.au>>
>>         wrote:
>>
>>>         No El, that is emphatically, categorically and precisely not
>>>         what I am stating.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         Cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>>         Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>>         On 28 Sep 2015, at 07:06 , Dr Eberhard W Lisse
>>>>         <epilisse at gmail.com
>>>>         <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aepilisse@gmail.com>>
>>>>         wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         Chris,
>>>>
>>>>         are you seriously stating that the Board does not have to
>>>>         give reasons because it was unaware we would like to
>>>>         unserstand why, or are are saying "You gotta ask me
>>>>         nicely"? (Jack Nicholson as Col Jessup in "A few good men")
>>>>
>>>>         greetings, el
>>>>
>>>>         --
>>>>         Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
>>>>
>>>>         On 27 Sep 2015, 13:31 -0700, Chris Disspain
>>>>         <ceo at auda.org.au
>>>>         <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aceo@auda.org.au>>,
>>>>         wrote:
>>>>>         [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>         But you did not ask the Board to expand on its comments or
>>>>>         explain why it had a problem with anything in the CCWG report.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>>         Chris
>>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
> 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/a0a080e2/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list