<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Oh that too. 100%. <br>
<br>
We are not in disagreement - that's the main reason I'm here. <br>
<br>
But I was simply setting out why some of us (Mr Deerhake called me
as being a dinosaur, but I prefer the term 'revenant') whilst
totally trusting individuals comprising the Board of ICANN find it
hard to trust the Board or corporate organisation collectively. <br>
<br>
Those of us who were part of the IFWP, as I was, would commend the
wise words of George Santanyana: 'Those who cannot <a
href="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Remember" title="Remember"
class="mw-redirect">remember</a> the <a
href="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Past" title="Past">past</a>
are condemned to repeat it.'<br>
<br>
So on that basis perhaps I should be expecting NTIA and ICANN to go
off in a huddle in a week or two and do a bilateral deal which has
much of the appearance but little of the substance of the stated
goal??? Now, that would be just too cynical of me, wouldn't it?<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 08/09/15 18:31, James M. Bladel
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:D2148579.8FAFD%25jbladel@godaddy.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Disagree, Nigel. It¹s not about the past, but rather an effort to
future-proof the organization against individuals & groups we haven¹t
event met yet.
Thanks‹
J.
On 9/8/15, 11:59 , <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofNigelRoberts">"accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on
behalf of Nigel Roberts"</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofnigel@channelisles.net"><accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
on behalf of nigel@channelisles.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Roelof
You are a smart guy. You are open and ready to trust. These are
admirable qualities.
But ICANN, as a collective entity, to those of us who were there at its
beginnings needs to continually prove it is worthy of trust.
Because back then, it wasn't.
And some of us remember.
On 08/09/15 17:53, Roelof Meijer wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">All,
Below I pasted some quotes from this thread. And I cannot but wonder.
What are we getting so wound up about? Did we really expected a ³yes,
perfect, let¹s implement this straight away²?
But what makes me wonder most is why, for heaven¹s sake, do we see the
board as a unity of ill-doers?
The board members that have participated in our work are individuals
that I hold in high esteem. Quite a few of them tutored me when I
entered this miraculous world of ICANN quite a few years ago.
They gave me different angles and insights, pointed out different
possible views and were open to discussion, disagreement and new ideas.
And were tirelessly working to improve the way we work for the benefit
of the global internet community. And most of them did not change a bit
after they decided to help us all forward even more, make a personal
sacrifice and join ICANN's board.
In my opinion, there¹s no collective single opinion in any wrong
direction in this board. There is however, a collective intellect and a
level of individual integrity and selfishness that one does not easily
find in executive structures. They deserve our respect. Which, no, does
not mean that we cannot have different opinions.
When Steve Crocker writes:
/"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.²/
he in my opinion sends a very clear message that we should happily
receive, as he commits the board. Let¹s await the promised details of
their ideas and keep engaged.
Why should we want to send messages like the following, what do we hope
to achieve? Frustrate the process to a halt?
Read the quotes below, and note the interpretations of what was read or
heard: as in ³while you say, Š. I seeŠ², ³when you say, Š you mean.."
/"While you say the the Single member is just a implementation issue, I
//see you attacking one of the fundamental principles, in fact the
//keystone of the CCWG proposal."/
//
/"I see in the Board's response a fear of the community and of the all
the //bad things we might do if we were not kept tightly in check"/
//
/"It should not come as a surprise that ICANN's current structure does
not want changes. Nothing is more natural in a change process than for
those who see some loss of control or authority to oppose it. It is a
very natural human reaction."/
//
/"for too long ICANN the corporation has operated according to the
priorities of the legal dept, and especially Jones Day, with the
board-staff simply taking direction from its lawyers (in-house and
out-house), putting the corporation first and the community last" /
//
/"When you say you agree to a thing in principle you mean that you have
not the slightest intention of carrying it out in practice."/
//
/"And I, for one, do not want the transition //badly enough that I would
capitulate to the Board's effort to completely //distort the proposed
process."/
//
/"I understand why the Board does not want to yield power. That is
precisely //why it must."/
//
/"The effort to spin the replacement recommendation as just
//operationalization is impressive."/
//
/"not surrender and let the Board have complete control //without any
possibility of ever being subject to oversight ever again"/
Let¹s all sit back a bit and reflect. On ourselvesŠ
Cheers,
Roelof Meijer
SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE
NETHERLANDS
T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl">roelof.meijer@sidn.nl</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl"><mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl></a> | <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.sidn.nl">www.sidn.nl</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.sidn.nl/"><http://www.sidn.nl/></a>
On 07-09-15 20:14, "<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org></a> on behalf of
Avri Doria" <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org></a> on behalf of
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:avri@acm.org"><mailto:avri@acm.org></a>> wrote:
Hi,
First, my perceptions are not colored by Trust. I trust the Board
and I
trust that you are all well intentioned people who are doing the
best
you can for ICANN. I believe that none of you has an ulterior
motive of
personal advantage for the positions you take. I go so far in my
trust
of the Board members as being among those who do not believe that a
Board member would ever take a position just because it would help
him
get elected and in the future would never believe that a Board
member
would change her position due to a concern with being removed from
the
Board. I am sure that each and every Board member would resign
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">>from the
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Board if they believed their effect were deleterious on ICANN and
the
Internet.
My issue has to with with different perspectives. Perspective from
the
Board that holds all the power, and from the community that wishes
to
become empowered, at leas to a degree.
While you say the the Single member is just a implementation issue,
I
see you attacking one of the fundamental principles, in fact the
keystone of the CCWG proposal.
I see in the Board's response a fear of the community and of the
all the
bad things we might do if we were not kept tightly in check. I
think
this is problematic and may be a barrier to finding a solution to
the
current impasse.
Some inset comments below.
On 07-Sep-15 04:22, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
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)
I do not see the Board as agreeing with the basic proposal. Maybe
it is
a matter of degree. The Board wishes to empower the community to a
lower
extent than the community considers empowerment. As explained by
other,
you want to give the community more appeal mechanisms, whereas on
some
fundamental issues the community requires decision making
empowerment.
The concepts are so far apart, it cannot be called 'agreement' in
any
straightforward definition of the term..
€Removal of the Board (Agreement with some minor specifications)
Sort of ok. I think there is a bit of very unflattering conjecture
on
the Board's part of a capricious and vengeful community. Why do you
fear us so?
€Fundamental Bylaws (Agreement)
Not really, the CCWG proposal required that the Community have a
direct
say on changes to fundamental bylaws and articles of incorporation.
Raising the Board's threshold and consultations do not match the
requirements at all. The are qualitatively different proposals.
€Operational Plan (Agreement)
€Budget (Agreement with some minor clarifictions)
How minor are those clarifications? My impression in the meeting
was
that they, like many of the other 'minor' issues where actually
based on
fundamental disagreements.
€Enforceability (Agreement)
I think you make a mistake about this. The Board seems to assume
that
we want to run off to court every time we are thwarted. Nothing
could
be further from the truth. The CCWG plan was designed to make
going to
court the end of a very long chain of other options that should not
be
necessary. The Board seems to offer a fast path to court. The CCWG
plan
balances the empowerment of the community with the empowerment of
the
Board nd strengthened redress mechanisms. It creates a new
participant
in the checks and balances.
€IRP (Agreement)
Without allowing for binding decisions, it can't be called
agreement.
€Ombudsman (Agreement)
We have a disagreement with regard to the Sole Membership Model.
Which is the keystone of the proposal and the reason that the other
parts of the solution would work.
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.
The community makes the decision? I thought the situation here was
that
ultimately the Board would make the decision. Had the community
been
making the decision, this process would have been like the CWG
process.
Once we would have finished the last comment period we would have
submitted out proposal and then we could have moded on to the
implementation phase.
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.
If the Board were closer to agreeing with the CCWG proposal, I
would be
able to agree. But given the explanations we have had of the MEM
and
the Board's other possible solutions, I just do not see this. To
me,
this looks like the morning of a multiday bike bike tour when a
century*
or two are left to the finish. But maybe it is more like a climb of
Everest at the last stage - stage 4, but i have never tried that.
(*century as in 100 km or miles - lets go with km, that is a little
better)
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.
Whereas I see this as a fundamental check and balance element that
compensates for the removal of ICANN's only external oversight. An
organization that removes formal external oversight needs a stronger
notion of community oversight mechanisms. The AOC reviews are a
good
start, but we have seen that not only do the recommendations
sometimes
get perverted in implementation (for example bylaws changes that
made
the IRP less useful rather than more so, as had been recommended by
ATRT1) or rather lackadaisically as we have seen with ATRT2
recommendations that are green lighted for someday over the
rainbow. As
people pointed out to me frequently when I spoke of ATRT2
recommendations, I mostly had to add: "but we are still waiting."
You speak of untested models. The only model that has been tested
is the
current model without any changes. And we have seen that this is a
model that does nothing to curb the creative and spending
exuberance of
the Board. It is a model that will not work without ultimate
oversight
somewhere. This we can see strong evidence for. As we become free
from
government's ultimate control, we have to make sure that the
community,
one that is ever outreaching, has adequate oversight. We need the
SMCM
in order to replace NTIA's ultimate responsibility. This cannot be a
transition of the absence of oversight, but rather must be a
transition
to community oversight. It is this that I don't think the Board has
accepted, and that is the crux of the matter. I think it is
something
that the CWG proposal requires.
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.
In one respect, I agree with you. I want all ACSO to have equal
footing in the SMCM, but am in the minority on that one as I want
its
structure to resemble essence of the matrix balance that exists in
the
ICANN system architecture. Nonetheless, I do not see major
opportunity
for capture in the reference model as the initiation mechanisms for
action and the vote thresholds are so high they do not facilitate
capture. And the simpler we are allowed to implement, the less
chance
there will be for capture and other shenanigans.
The Sole Membership Model, as it is proposed now, is still too
vague, too unbalanced, too confusing.
I disagree. It is fairly direct and limited. It has defined scope
and
functions. The only fuzzy part is the voting thresholds and the
modalities by which it worst internally, but that is an
implementation
detail.
It is not yet ready for adoption.
We disagree on this.
It needs a lot of more work.
We agree on this, but those are implementation details. That fact
of an
SMCM is not a mere operationalization detail as the Board seems to
claim, but its implementation modalities may be.
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.
I think you will find if you investigate it that many of the
weaknesses
of the model have been dealt with. perhaps Sidley and Adler will
help
us with that.
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.
Again you miss the point about the SMCM being the the keystone in
this
system construction. Removing it requires going back to the
beginning
as it holds everything together.
As soon as WS1 in complete, the process will be stoppable unless the
community model has been implemented. As long as the Board remains
unchecked, and only accessible by appeal, a system that has failed
at
ICANN since its beginnings, there will be no way fro redress Board
actiions. If there is one thing ICANN has nearly always failed in
it is
redress mechanisms. After all these years of failure in redress
mechanism why should anyone be convinced on ICANN's future redress
mechanisms. Here we have proof of what doesn't work. New RR, IRP,
ombudsman roles roles &c, are the experimental part of this
proposal. I
have faith that with a SMCM we can insure that there are genuine
improvements to the redress mechanisms, but in today's Board
configuration, it is impossible to believe in redress at ICANN.
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 ³WS 3² and ³ICANN 2020².
And I also argued that small steps are better than big jumps.
Yes any organization that does not continually improve is doomed.
but
we should get to a point of sufficient accountability in good time,
and
leave the future to necessary tweaking.
I find the invention of WS3 to be the first step in the process of
taking decisions out of WS2 and see it as the tip of the spear for
thwarting future change. Anything hard, lets push it to WS2, and
then to
WS3...
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.
I am not quite the Bill Clinton fan you are. And find that too much
stumbling, as we often see among the Clintons, is not really the
best
example. Yes, if we are about to fall, stumbling forward is
preferable,
but I would prefer to see us get our multistakeholder model beyond
the
stumbling phase.
As for being patient, sorry, been too long coming. We have been
patient. My experience is of at least of decade of 'soon come.'
For
others it is much longer.
But if patient I must be, I am ready to be patient now and wait for
transition until we are ready.
And here is a final observation. To put it like Greg as a
conflict as ³Board on Top² vs. ³Community on Top² 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.
The politics of Tops and Bottoms is always tough unless there is
real
mutual trust of each party by the other. You claim that the
community
does not trust the Board, that may be the case among some parts of
the
community. I claim that a far greater lack of trust is displayed
by the
Board for the community. I think many of your comments are colored
by a
pervasive distrust of the community and its purported drive to
capture
and game.
Once a community member becomes a Board member she adopts a new
perspective and set of responsibilities. This is what makes the
Board
another part of the community while not representing the community.
For
a the Board to become a genuine member of the community, it needs to
give up its role as benevolent despot and accept the need for the
community to balance its power. ICANN needs a community that can
check
and balance the Board's unilateral power.
The CCWG model defines a degree of power sharing between the two as
the
best solution for replacing NTIA oversight.
avri
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>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"><mailto: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>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"><mailto: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:
where the current proposal still warrants much detail that
may not be
achievable
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:
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-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>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#%3E%3Chttps://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#%3E%3Chttps://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#%3E%3Chttps://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#%3E%3Chttps://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#%3E%3Chttps://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#"><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#%
3E%3Chttps://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mi
le#%3E%3Chttps://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-las
t-mile#%3E%3Chttps://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the
-last-mile#%3E%3Chttps://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through
-the-last-mile#%3E%3Chttps://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-thr
ough-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-Septem
ber/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-Septem
ber/005161.html></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-September/005161.html%3E"><http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-Septem
ber/005161.html%3E></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-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"><mailto: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>
---
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-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"><mailto: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>
---
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-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"><mailto: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="">_______________________________________________
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>