[CCWG-ACCT] recap and next steps?

Sun Feb 21 17:41:59 UTC 2016

Some people keep referring to sole member model as if we will still not
require threshold to spill the board or exercise any of the community
powers.

What we have in front of us is just a minor issue(compared to what had been
surmounted in the past) that ought not to require so much unnecessary
threats as I don't think they are necessary neither do they draw much water.

I encourage everyone to just calm down about all these and then we move
into the substance of the issue by looking at the text that was proposed at
the last meeting (which by the way only had 1 objection when the co-chairs
asked for objection), and figure out whether it's sufficient compromise or
not.

Regards
On 21 Feb 2016 6:24 p.m., "Phil Corwin" <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

> "... so what conclusions can be drawn from the fact that we can't even
> hold the Board to the same rules that we have established for ourselves in
> this process?"
>
> The same conclusion that can be drawn from the fact that "we" folded on
> the Member model in Dublin when the Board protested, rather than insisting
> that ICANN's single member community have the same statutory powers as any
> other California non-profit corporation.
>
> Don't get me wrong. The accountability powers in the current proposal are
> far more robust than what we have at present. But getting the level of
> community cohesion to exercise the more powerful ones will be like herding
> cats.
>
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/cell
>
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Schaefer,
> Brett
> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 6:59 AM
> To: Jordan Carter
> Cc: Accountability Cross Community
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] recap and next steps?
>
> Jordan,
>
> This is a good summary.
>
> I am offended at how the Board has abused its power in this process by
> violating process, procedure and timelines to push its agenda.
>
> I would ask one additional question. Our entire proposal is focused on how
> to make ICANN accountable to the community, so what conclusions can be
> drawn from the fact that we can't even hold the Board to the same rules
> that we have established for ourselves in this process?
>
> Best,
>
> Brett
>
>
> ________________________________
> Brett Schaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security
> and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
>
> On Feb 20, 2016, at 10:28 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> I'm trying for a recap / reset in this message, not sure I succeed but
> trying to help the discussion along.
>
> Here's the background that has caused the current extension of debate, as
> I understand it:
>
> - CCWG incorporated the idea that a decisional participant with a special
> role (GAC's advisory role that requires due deference by the Board, unique
> among ACs) should not be a decision-maker in applying accountability powers
> in relation to the consequences of that role. (In other words, GAC can
> choose - either consensus advice, or the ability to decide on
> accountability powers re its views - but not both).
>
> - if GAC is excluded from decisions, there would likely be four other SOs
> and ACs participating.
>
> - CCWG developed a principle that the use of community powers should not
> require unanimity for their use, so a proposal was made that the threshold
> for the Board Removal power should lower to 3 in such a situation.
>
> - the debate since has been about when that lower threshold of 3 SOs/ACs
> should apply.
>
>   - some participants think it's only if an IRP holds that the Board has
> breached the mission / bylaws
>
>   - other participants think it's broader than that and applies whenever
> the cause is related to Board responses to GAC advice
>
> - the Board has repeatedly said that it does not want the "no unanimity"
> principle to apply, but is willing to accept the lower threshold where an
> IRP finds against it.
>
> -  there seems to be disagreement about what the CCWG actually decided in
> this, which is driving the discussion.
>
>
> So here is what I think are some basics that we have to do:
>
> - we have to reach clarity about what precisely we have decided, and if
> there were any gaps in that, they need to be specified.
>
> - we have to decide what to do if that clarity exposes alternatives that
> haven't been decided between - that may include a position that the Board
> isn't happy with.
>
> - we have to choose alternative that can drive the widest possible
> consensus within the group (unlike Steve Crocker's email, I don't think
> that a decision on this can be pushed to implementation)
>
> - we have to publish the report
>
> I'm not a spokesperson for the leadership team but I can say that I'll be
> doing what I can with the co-chairs and other rapporteurs to help make sure
> that the options are as clear as they can be for our meeting on Tuesday --
> so that the chances of confusion are as low as possible.
>
> I've said before that I don't mind where the group finalises on this
> issue.  Here's why
>
> I do not think it's likely that the community is going to use the new
> accountability powers to disagree with Board implementation of matters that
> include GAC advice in the future.  There are a number of reasons why I hold
> that view, two key ones being:
>
> - the improving transparency of GAC advice and particularly the GNSO/GAC
> engagement and the Board/GAC engagement
> - the existence of the new accountability framework, which makes it less
> likely the Board will go against strong community sentiment
>
> If I thought this was an important issue which would have a significant
> impact on our package, and that it was a life or death matter to resolve
> one way or the other, I would be very offended by the way this has played
> out in the past few days.  But because the stakes are so low on the
> substance, I am *very* happy to fall into consensus with whatever direction
> the group wants to go, and I *do not* see this as an issue where *anyone*
> should be adopting non-negotiable positions.
>
> I don't expect that everyone will agree with me that this simply isn't
> that important an issue, but I really hope that as a CCWG, we can put this
> matter into perspective.  The CCWG has to come to a conclusion on that, and
> get the report out.
>
>
> SO -- hopefully on Tuesday we can work through the options in front of us
> and come to a decision about what to do.
>
> If any party gets to the point on this issue that they feel like dying in
> the ditch is worth it, well may I humbly suggest that you find yourself a
> ditch? :-)
>
>
> best
> Jordan
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet
>
> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Skype: jordancarter
> Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160221/e5c59848/attachment.html>