[CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment

Tue Sep 29 09:02:16 UTC 2015

Hi all

Watching the process of finalising the CCWG-A proposal from afar is not
easy and if my comments that follow are way off beam, please ignore them.

It seems to me that there are now two proposals on the table the CCWG-A's
SMM and the Board's MEM.

The CCWG-A's proposal is the product of long debates and fine-tuning and
represents, as Alan notes,  a fragile compromise between the various
stakeholders. The Board's MEM is clearly the product of the Board's
thinking and strategising around the issue.

For me it would be a mistake to try and forge a compromise proposal between
the SMM and the MEM. I would recommend that the two proposals be worked on
separately and then tested before the Dublin meeting with the chartering
organisations.

One observation I would make is that the SMM puts a high threshold on
community decisions to take action on the community powers. The rationale
behind this is to ensure that they are exercised minimally as instruments
of last resort. The MEM tries to replicate this process in its procedures
for activating the MEM:
Process to Initiate MEM Arbitration:
1.Any single SO or AC, by some measure of consensus, can initiate a
petition to commence MEM Arbitration
2.The SO or AC would provide a notice of the petition to all other SOs and
ACs and begin a discussion phase with all other SOs and ACs (15 days).
3.The SOs and ACs will then have 21 days to considerwhether to support the
petition.
4.To initiate formal MEM proceedings, the agreed number of SOs and ACs must
support the petition. If there is sufficient support amongst the SOs and
ACs then representatives of those supporting Sos and ACs would become the
MEM Issue Group.
5. The MEM Issue Group would then submit a request for Arbitration to the
Standing Panel alleging a violation of at least one Fundamental Bylaw and
including the grounds upon which that alleged violation occured.

This complicated process of consultation seems to be surplus to
requirements. If there is no Sole Member, then any SO or AC should be able
to initiate the Arbitration process based on its identiying a violation and
the outcome of the arbitration should include the activation of any of the
five Community Powers. Arbitration is there to test the veracity of the
claimed violation - it does not matter whether more than one SO or AC
agrees or not - because they are not consituted as members. This is why it
is not helpful to mix the two proposals - they are addressing different
accountability matters. If the Board wants its MEM then any stakeholder
should be able to activate it.

Best regards
Willie Currie,

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> 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 <rudi.daniel at gmail.com >
> Date: Monday, September 28, 2015 at 1:11 PM
> To: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net >
> Cc: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>, Accountability Community <
> 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" <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, " accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" <
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
> 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 <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 <avri at ella.com
> >>> < mailto:avri at ella.com <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 <epilisse at gmail.com
> >>>> < mailto:epilisse at gmail.com <epilisse at gmail.com>>>
> >>>> Date:09/28/2015 8:15 AM (GMT-05:00)
> >>>> To: CCWG Accountability < accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> >>>> < mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>>
> >>>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors at omadhina.NET
> >>>> < mailto:directors at omadhina.NET <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 <egmorris1 at toast.net
> >>>> < mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net <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
> >>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >>>>> < mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
> >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> <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=>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >>>> < mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> <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=>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> <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=>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150929/1aedcfa6/attachment.html>