[CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas

Tue Sep 29 00:17:12 UTC 2015

Kieren
Your thoughts sounds a reasonable strategy at this point in the proceedings.

"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."

Better than breadcrumbs!!
RD
On Sep 28, 2015 3:07 PM, "Kieren McCarthy" <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com>
wrote:

> 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> 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> 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>:
>>
>> 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
>> 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/20150928/7b5e65d4/attachment.html>