[CCWG-ACCT] U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Full Hearing on 24 May 2016

Tue May 24 21:23:29 UTC 2016

Dear Paul,

I haven't even so far heard of heritage foundation, nor have I done as much
as an Internet search for Brett's profile
. What caught my eye was the phrase "soft-extension". In my own
interpretation, independent of any details that the Heritage Foundation
might imply by their thinking, the phrase "soft-extension", particularly
the word "soft" could point to a solution to the lingering issues such as
"GAC carve out".  I have a feeling that the compromises reached within the
Working Groups does not imply that the whole world has agreed. What
occurred to me at this moment is that it may not be necessary to assume
that ICANN is in a hurry to get the transition papers signed, not necessary
to assume that the next Government would be completely against the idea of
transition, and in the absence of these assumptions, it is wiser to get the
accountability framework on such a path that would get even the most
hostile quarters to be receptive.

Sivasubramanian M

On May 25, 2016 2:11 AM, "Paul Twomey" <paul.twomey at argopacific.com> wrote:

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
listAccountability-Cross-Community at icann.orghttps://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

_______________________________________________
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/20160525/7bc4fe98/attachment-0001.html>