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

Tue May 24 22:01:24 UTC 2016

I understand Sivasubramanian.   I suspect in these sort of things, 
nothing is perfect.  But rarely do the stars pretty much align - and 
when they do, I think it is best to act then.     Just a personal view.

On 5/25/16 7:23 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
>
> 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 
> <mailto: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 list
>>     Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>     <mailto: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 <tel:%2B1%20310%20279%202366>
>     Aust M:+61 416 238 501 <tel:%2B61%20416%20238%20501>
>
>     www.argopacific.com <http://www.argopacific.com>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
>

-- 
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/20160525/24207f86/attachment-0001.html>