<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 07 September 2015 05:34 PM,
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801A2A113@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Parminder,
here is a proposal: Please come in. This is not a "revolving door", this is an "open door". </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Dear Wolfgang,<br>
<br>
If you read our comments, esp the<a
href="https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission19.pdf">
submission 19 </a>below, it explains at length our views on the
'openness' of the process. We regret the kind of violence and
disservice that the IANA transition process has done the principles
and practice of openness. It has given it such a bad name that, and
we do argue why, it actually would qualify to be a very useful case
study of how openness can be twisted and subverted to partisan
causes. Rather than mean 'equitable participation' 'openness' is
employed in the meaning of 'flexibility' whereby everything and
anything goes, and everything can be turned or bent to suit what
clearly are pre determined outcomes led by clear and rather obvious
political objectives, of those who exercise all the power in the
current dispensation, which is the US establishment, and the global
big business. So, no, the door is not 'open', it is 'flexible' and
includes and excludes at will. Great flexibility is not 'openness',
it is a device in the hands of the incumbents and the powerful to
turn and twist the process at will so that it goes in no other
direction than what they want it to go into... <br>
<br>
To be more concrete, I and Just Net Coalition (JNC) have
participated as must as one could in this process - even though one
of the major ways of exclusion here is to take decisions behind such
complex and time consuming labyrinths that it is finally a race in
which only the most resourceful can stay on, and thus when the field
is fully thinned out, the real decisions gets taken. But we still
participated, although we, like any self respecting group tying to
represent the interests of the marginalised, are extremely stretched
in terms of resources . We contributed at most if not all stages of
the process, even as the process was clearly headed where it seemed
always destined to head. <br>
<br>
Let me be even more specific, and I have said this before on this
list with no engagement. All the meetings that I have been to in
India held on the IANA transition subject, and these were all held
by groups that do regularly engage with ICANN, concluded on two
issues as being crucial in the IANA transition, (1) the jurisdiction
issue, and (2) external accountability (meaning external wrt to the
groups that directly engage inside ICANN system or form a part of
it). The only survey held in India on this issue - by a group that
would be considered rather mainstream in its views and has engaged
with ICANN, also came to the same conclusion, as these two issues
being the most key.<br>
<br>
Now, the question is, when a country with one seventh of the world's
population seems to be predominately of the view that IANA
transition is about these two issues, and I can bet (and, over
discussions and arguments, prove) that it is the same in almost all
developing countries which is 4/5th of the world, and also in many
developed ones, outside a narrow group of people who over the years
have developed close connections with the ICANN systems (again happy
to discuss the validity of this claim), how is that the IANA
transition process comes up with final proposals, that are supposed
to represent the global public will, but which fully bypass these
two key issues. This the question that you and other supporters of
the process must address. The proof of the 'openness' cake is in its
eating, which here is about how the process throws up proposals that
do not address what an overwhelming majority of people in the world
consider as the most fundamental one with regard to oversight
transition.<br>
<br>
The proposals on the table right now, and the contestations around
them, are all about shifts or balances of power within the 'ICANN
system', while those outside are hapless bystanders. Nothing can be
a better evidence of the closed-ness of the process than this. <br>
<br>
In fact I only came to know very recently, and after having
contributing to the Just Net Coalition submissions, the absolutely
horrifying fact that ICANN board still holds a veto on the proposals
going forward... And these are supposed to be proposals about
oversight over the ICANN board! (Which is of course apart from the
final veto of the US gov who currently holds the power that is
sought to be replaced.) Which century are we living in with regard
to legitimacy and appropriateness of public governance processes!
And then, Wolfgang, you speak of open doors and openness. Here we
have a process that is fully loaded with ICANN insiders, with strong
structural exclusions (our submission has called it a '<a
href="https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission19.pdf">process
with glass walls, underground tunnels and invisible hands</a>' )
and at the end of it ICANN and then US government still gets to
decide if they will let it pass or not...Even flexibility must have
some limits. In any case please do not call 'flexibility' by the
good name of 'openness'. <br>
<br>
regards, parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801A2A113@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Wolfgang
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: Mo 07.09.2015 12:16
An: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog: Working Together Through The Last Mile
"And here is a final observation. To put it - like Greg - as a conflict
as "Board on Top" vs. "Community on Top" is misleading. Both the members
of the Board and the members of the CCWG are selected by the community.
Both are accountable to the community. As I said in the chat during the
recent telco we all are sitting in one boat (or in one car) and want to
have a better, stable, secure, efficient and accountable ICANN with more
(and stress-tested) checks and balances in the system. " (Wolfgang)
This is the only part in which I agree with Wofgang, the people inside
the ICANN and those outside who are supposed to exercise "community
power" (though the boundaries of what is claimed to be ICANN is never
clear to me - with all this business of ICANN community and stuff)
constitute a single group, as you say all 'sitting in the same boat',
with very well-greased revolving doors between them. It is the people
outside the boat - with its connotation of floating or sinking together,
those standing on the shore who need to have the oversight over ICANN,
not the insiders just trying to balance their mutual powers as is
happening currently . It is for this reason that the IANA transition
fails on the the most important political imperative in the current
context whereby key technical functions need to be accountable to the
global public. It even fails the key NTIA criterion of transition of
oversight to 'global multistakeholder community'. No one has explained
to me how is this narrow community coexistent with the global public or
global multistakeholder community, and thereby how is the NTIA creteria
met.
Just Net Coalition has therefore rejected both the outcome and the
process of the IANA transition proposals as per below submissions to the
public comments process...
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission19.pdf">https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission19.pdf</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission18.pdf">https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission18.pdf</a>
parminder
On Monday 07 September 2015 01:52 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Avri,
it is not easy for me to disagree with you. In most of the areas where we work together we have consensus or rough consensus. But here we have one of this seldom cases of disagreement. I recognize your statement but I am asking myself whether it is grounded on facts or on mistrust?
What are the facts? For nearly all CCWG building blocks we have an agreement:
. Community empowerment (Agreeement)
. Removal of the Board (Agreement with some minor specifications)
. Fundamental Bylaws (Agreement)
. Operational Plan (Agreement)
. Budget (Agreement with some minor clarifictions)
. Enforceability (Agreement)
. IRP (Agreement)
. Ombudsman (Agreement)
We have a disagreement with regard to the Sole Membership Model. For me the remaining open issues can be solved by further intensification of the dialogue within the community including CCWG and Board members. We have enough legal advice from different perspectives. If needed, we could get a third legal advice. But at the end it is the community which has to make the decision.
This is the last mile. It is very natural that in such a complicated transition in the final stage there are some remaining controversies. In my eyes, there are not 20 miles to go (as Becky has proposed). The main work is done. And it is good work, also thanks to the CCWG, to its co-chairs, to its members and to the input from the broader community. The whole process is a very encouraging example which shows how the multistakeholder approach works in practice. This is an important signal also towards the WSIS 10+ Review process in New York.
The reason why I have problems with the sole membership model is simple: I am in favor of a new mechanism to strengthen the checks and balances in the ICANN system to keep the board (and the other ICANN bodies) accountable to the community. But in my eyes the proposed Sole Membership Model is untested, has a number of risks and is open for unintended side-effects. I am not convinced that the proposed voting mechanism is save enough against capture. I did not get a satisfying rationale why Advisory Committees are treated so differently in the proposed mechanism. I have my doubts how governments can be included in an appropriate way into this new mechanism without touching the well designed balance between governments and the non-governmental stakeholders in the ICANN ecosystem. And there are other detailed questions.
The Sole Membership Model, as it is proposed now, is still too vague, too unbalanced, too confusing. It is not yet ready for adoption. It needs a lot of more work. There are too many weak points. Go back to the table which was presented by Sidley in Paris where they showed us the plus and minus of the three models. It is true that the Sole Membership Model was the best of the three with more plus and less minus than the other two. But in total, all the three models were far away to meet the NTIA criteria, to be save enough against capture and to enhance ICANNs operational stability and security. More innovation, more creativity and more careful analysis are needed. I raised my doubts in BA. I repeated this in Paris. And I raised my voice in the various telcos.
My first proposal was to dislink the discussion of the sole membership model from WS 1 and to have more time to go into the details of such a needed new mechanism in WS 2. This is obviously impossible. We have to propose something here and now within WS 1. I know that some CCWG members have mistrust into a long-term process and speculate that if they do not get it now they will get it never. I think this is wrong. The process is unstoppable.
My impression is that the majority in the community sees this indeed as an ongoing process of ICANNs improvement which will not stop with the IANA transition. In BA I argued that after the IANA transition (WS 1) and an enhanced accountability (WS 2) we will need to discuss a restructuring of ICANN to adjust its various SOs and ACs and CCWGs to the new challenges of a changing environment. I did call this "WS 3" and "ICANN 2020". And I also argued that small steps are better than big jumps.
More or less we are witnessing now what Bill Clinton told us in San Francisco that getting Internet Governance right is like stumbling forward. As longs as it goes forward, it is ok. And what we are doing now is to prepare the next (small) stumbling step forward. With other words, we have to be patient and to do now what can be done now and what is needed under WS 1 to allow the termination of the IANA contract. But this will not be the end of the story. It will go on.
And here is a final observation. To put it - like Greg - as a conflict as "Board on Top" vs. "Community on Top" is misleading. Both the members of the Board and the members of the CCWG are selected by the community. Both are accountable to the community. As I said in the chat during the recent telco we all are sitting in one boat (or in one car) and want to have a better, stable, secure, efficient and accountable ICANN with more (and stress-tested) checks and balances in the system.
Wolfgang
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Sa 05.09.2015 08:17
An: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog: Working Together Through The Last Mile
Hi,
The effort to spin the replacement recommendation as just
operationalization is impressive.
I do not understand the references to capture unless they mean capture
by the community from the Board. I suppose that from their perspective
the CMSM would appear to be capture in and of itself, as it gives the
community a share of the power they now hold for themselves. I think
any discussion of capture that goes beyond FUD, needs an analysis who
who has captured the current ICANN model. Capture is always an
interesting topic because it often means: "who is trying to share my
power now?" I am all for opening up the discussion to the power
anlaysi, current, potential and likely.
Additionally, I do not understand this statement:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">where the current proposal still warrants much detail that may not be
achievable
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">While it is true that is needs a bit more detail, though perhaps much
less that is being claimed - until it is time for implementaton, it is
not as bad as all of that. What do they mean that an adequate level of
detail is not achievable? Though I have learned that if someone does not
wish to accept a proposal, it can never have enough detail.
I think we are facing a critical moment in this transition where we, as
a community, will have to decide whether we want the transition so badly
that we are willing to surrender and let the Board have complete control
without any possibility of ever being subject to oversight ever again.
The transition is the time to switch from NTIA oversight to community
oversight. If this is not possible, then perhaps the transition should
not go forward.
We need to consider this turn of affairs quite carefully.
avri
On 04-Sep-15 15:53, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Original
link: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile">https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile</a>
Working Together Through The Last Mile
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#"><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#"><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#"><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#"><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#"><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#></a><a class="moz-!
txt-link-r
fc2396E" href="https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#"><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#></a>
I'd like to thank everyone who has participated in both the CCWG
briefing to the ICANN Board
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56132981"><https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56132981></a>,
and the CCWG and ICANN board dialogue
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56133316"><https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56133316></a>.
All of our dialogues over the past months have been illuminating,
challenging and in my opinion, an important and true testament to the
multistakeholder model as we work toward the IANA Stewardship Transition.
*/We support the important improvements for ICANN's accountability
contained in the CCWG-Accountability's 2nd Draft Proposal. We endorse
the goal of enforceability of these accountability mechanisms, and we
believe that it is possible to implement the key elements of the
proposal. We want to work together to achieve the elements of the
proposal within the community's timeline while meeting
the NTIA requirements./*
As we enter the final days of the Public Comment period, the Board
wants to be completely clear on our position. We are in agreement on
key concepts set forward in the CCWG's proposal, for example:
* Fundamental bylaws.
* Specific requirements for empowering the community into the bylaws
adoption process.
* IRP enhancements.
* Board and director removal.
* ICANN's mission and core values.
* Strengthening requirements for empowering the community in the
budget, operational and strategic planning process.
* The incorporation of the Affirmation of Commitments Reviews
intoICANN bylaws.
* Community ability to enforce the accountability mechanisms in the
bylaws.
We have suggestions on how these could be operationalized. With
regards to the mechanisms for community enforceability, where the
current proposal still warrants much detail that may not be achievable
we have a suggestion on how to deliver on it in a stable way, as
increased enforceability must not open up questions of, for example,
capture or diminishing of checks and balances.
Let's work together on operationalizing the above principles on which
we agree. Once again, we are committed to providing more detail on how
these ideas can be operationalized in a way that they can be
implemented within the community identified time frame for the
transition, as well as have sufficient tested grounds to not result in
unintended consequences.
During last night's discussion we shared this feedback. It was a lot
of information to digest in a call (notes around opening remarks
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-September/005160.html"><http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-September/005160.html></a>, notes
around 10 points
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-September/005161.html"><http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-September/005161.html></a>),
and we appreciate everyone giving our advice consideration. We are
committed to submitting our comments into the Public Comment process
in the next few days, and we look forward to the working with the
community on further details.
It is critical that we work together to build enhanced accountability
forICANN and continue to refine and flesh out details of the
impressive work already done by the community and complete
the IANAStewardship Transition.
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>