[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 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>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list