[CCWG-ACCT] U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Full Hearing on 24 May 2016
Paul Twomey
paul.twomey at argopacific.com
Tue May 24 20:23:30 UTC 2016
My only comment would be - be careful about propositions from Think
Tanks etc. In my experience, there is normally a commercial interest
behind the think tank's words. I always think it is useful to ask -
what US corporation is pushing this line?
On 5/25/16 6:07 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
> Halfway through watching the webcast, yet to read the written
> testimonies in full, this caught my attention:
>
> The Heritage Foundation's Brett Shaefer: /A soft extension of the
> current contract for a reasonable period of time would allow the
> community and ICANN to take the new mechanisms for a sustained test
> drive to verify to the Internet community that relies on ICANN that
> they are working as envisioned. This would not derail the progress
> made by the ICG or the CCWG because the ICANN board has confirmed that
> virtually all of the recommended changes, including the new
> accountability improvements and the EC, would be adopted and
> implemented whether the transition proceeds or not. It would therefore
> be prudent to maintain U.S. oversight, or at least a means for
> reasserting NTIA oversight, for the next two years until the new
> structure proves itself and the details of Work Stream 2 are fully
> developed and their implications understood./
>
> The text of Brett Shaefer's 'soft extension' suggestion "/to maintain
> U.S. oversight, or at least a means for reasserting NTIA oversight"/,
> does not sound soft enough.
>
> Nor was the posture of Steve DelBianco (52:00): ... GAC gets one vote,
> "but when it comes it challenging decisions that arise out of
> Government advice, we drew the line ... the US Government role can
> block Government advice. When the Board of ICANN wants to act on
> Government advice and the Community wishes to challenge that advice,
> we can't allow Governments to block our ability to challenge it, we
> carve them out, we exclude the Governments from having a vote... On
> Net, we have cabined off the Government power..." That would have
> impressed the US Senate, but at least a few other Governments wouldn't
> have liked it.
>
> Steve Delbianco's response to Heritage (57:00) was to say that it
> would be a slap on the face of the Community that has worked so hard,
> and has produced a proposal is well balanced. "The powers that the
> community has are extraordinary powers. We would only invoke our
> powers to block a budget, block a bylaw [change], or spill the Board
> if the Board acted in a completely inappropriate way" There is no
> coverage provided by the United States better than the coverage
> provided by the California courts, community's powers to go to courts
> in California, to force the Board to follow the Community's
> Consensus... What we have designed gives the Community, for the first
> time ever, the power to go to Court in California, to force the Board
> to follow the Community's consensus, to spill the Board, if that is
> our Consensus, to overturn the Budget if the Community doesn't
> support. That is the kind of back-stop we need, and we have it in
> California courts"
>
> Very powerful argument, but what is "Community" in ICANN today? What
> is the power dynamics? and, What does that transition proposal contain
> that is enough to offer hope that the Community would be well balanced
> post-transition? In terms of the Community's powers to go to
> California court, will the Community have a Reserve for legal
> expenses, who really gets to decide what issues merit legal action? If
> there are no Community funds to take any issue to Court, which
> participants of the Community would fund the lawsuit, and what
> influences would such participants exercise in the decisions to
> earmark or escalate an issue for legal action? In a scenario not
> altogether unlikely, if the "Community" is willing to spend ten times
> as much as the Board's available legal defense Budget, the Board would
> be constantly under threat of lawsuits.
>
> Even while continuing to be in the California Jurisdiction, the
> Accountability design requires to be one that would move ICANN
> governance as farther away from California Courts as possible. Could
> there be an Accountability design that could take ICANN governance
> away from lawyers (no disrespect intended) but towards a balanced and
> inherently just framework? Could there be a "soft enough" or "loose"
> oversight/observation by the NTIA at least until Workstream 2 and
> other Accountability processes place together such a self-contained
> framework for global public interest?
>
> In many ways, a soft interim role for the US Government, or a short
> delay would actually ensure that the transition details are gracefully
> accepted by the whole world.
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Dr Paul Twomey
Managing Director
Argo P at cific
US Cell: +1 310 279 2366
Aust M: +61 416 238 501
www.argopacific.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160525/2c9f150d/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list