<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td valign="top"><div>There is going to be a degree of devolvement in every group that is becoming less relevant to a consolidating power structure, the natural projection of frustration as the new corporate reality becomes clear. The key, if increasing community involvement was actually a long term goal of ICANN's board, would be to show that they are doing something productive to that end, and not just speaking broadly when the temperature of the community rises, in an effort to run out the clock. On the other hand, people like to complain and there remains the possibility that people really either really are upset about the board or people are substituting complaining for their lack of solutions and knowledge of the process, like a college student trying to sow disenfranchisement in a boring three hour class just to make it more interesting by asking 1000 annoying questions. <br /><br />In this
case, though, there does appear to be some real solutions presented to the identified problem of lack or waning community engagement in ICANN, and it remains to be seen whether or not the community suggestions are actually taken into account. My opinion is that increasingly they will not be. "We need more money" is always the number one complaint, no matter if a community is becoming more or less relevant, even if that monetary agenda is hidden behind other complaints or factoids. Remember, the ICANN board is full of smart people with many people in their ears, they are probably fed-up with the general idea of "community engagement" in ICANN and at conferences because those people don't know all the acroymns and policies as well as they do. Those newcomers also are untrusted, the more power someone has the less they trust the lower people, the lower those people are on the ladder.<br /><br />Engagement and retainment of people being low doesnt
necessarily mean the world is underrepresented at ICANN, think quality, not quantity, when it comes to a "quota" or ever increasing number of people engaged with the ICANN community. I think the opposite is true, that the community is being phased out. But, at the same time, the quantity and quality of retained people are low because ICANN is intellectually difficult and overwhelming for a world of people with low attention spans and addicted to entertainment, and with all the boring computer-tech stuff, many future intellectual leaders in the form of newcomers won't spend their money trying to keep up with ICANN (learning what all the groups do, the DNS, Root zone, TLD's etc.) because they have great ideas but never had an interest in what Verisign does or how things are inputed into a Root Zone Cluster,... unless they are the ones doing the inputting,<br /><br />New leaders aren't being retained by this community because of two additional reasons::
<br /><br />1) the amount of unneccessarily drawn out reports, a non-streamlined process of endless boring information and minutes full of sometimes invented "business speak" that brutally manipulates the English language for the sake of sounding smart, and time wasting. While people like me can understand a system and try to make it work, many say, "No thanks" because it is difficult to learn a new or manipulated language at an older age. What is the age group of newcomers at ICANN? Most people can't resrructure their language learning skills past their 20s.<br /><br />2) The lack of funds to get people to conferences to actually enjoy themselves while traveling half way across the globe to largely be ignored and royally confused by the glut of new information, and new funds that won't be allocated in my opinion would attract people with incentives other than exploiting the time and "good will" of participants.<br /><br />The board inherently thinks
that because of the lack of funds, the rest of the community is probably unnecessary at this point, and should be limited in membership or disbanded, because once ICANN is transferred the rights to the internet by the US Government next June, the previous need to be inclusive of the community will in my opinion probably morph from the current lip-service into your basic corporate oligarchy, which only cares about its volunteers when it can steal an idea or two from them, or when the corporation royally screws up their product, like issuing level 3 keys to a fake microsoft employee. The mailing lists will increasing ask, "Whats in it for me" and the board will on reasing say to themselves, "Nothing, unless you have a genius idea we can use" or if the board screws something up so badly that it is newsworthy, then it becomes, "We are all in is together."<br /><br />In conclusion, ICANN will continue to trend towards what most other government-corporate
structures of modern times trend towards, Oligarchy, with a cetain degree of "bread crumbs" strewn about to make it appear as if that isn't the case, when it clearly is.<br /><br />Ronald Baione-Doda<br />NY-USA<br /></div></td></tr></table> <div id="_origMsg_">
<div>
<br />
<div>
<div style="font-size:0.9em">
<hr size="1">
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span>
</b>
Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span>
</b>
George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky@gmail.com>; Kleinwachter Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de>; <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc:</span>
</b>
CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span>
</b>
Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Message from ICANN Board re Designator Model <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span>
</b>
Tue, Oct 6, 2015 10:18:18 PM <br>
</div>
<br>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top">Hello George.<BR><BR>I have no quarrel with the fine and dedicated work of the NomCom.<BR><BR>I do have a quarrel with the notion that the Board is significantly more representative and protective of the global Internet community and its interests than the members of the ICANN community, who contribute tens of millions of dollars' worth of unpaid labor on behalf of ICANN and its objectives each and every year.<BR><BR>Best regards, Philip<BR><BR>Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal<BR>Virtualaw LLC<BR>1155 F Street, NW<BR>Suite 1050<BR>Washington, DC 20004<BR>202-559-8597/Direct<BR>202-559-8750/Fax<BR>202-255-6172/cell<BR><BR>Twitter: @VlawDC<BR> <BR>"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: George Sadowsky [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com" href="javascript:return">george.sadowsky@gmail.com</a>] <BR>Sent: Tuesday, October 06,
2015 5:10 PM<BR>To: Kleinwachter Wolfgang<BR>Cc: Phil Corwin; Paul Rosenzweig; Guru Acharya; CCWG Accountability<BR>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Message from ICANN Board re Designator Model<BR><BR>Hi, Phil,<BR><BR>I want to align myself 100% with Wolfgang's comments below. I chaired the NomCom for three successive years, in 2005-2007, and my experience agrees with Wolfgang's completely.<BR><BR>I cannot duplicate Wolfgang's extensive discussion of how it works and why it works, but I don't have to. He has already made the case, and eloquently.<BR><BR>Regards,<BR><BR>George<BR><BR><BR>> On Oct 6, 2015, at 3:14 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <<a ymailto="mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de" href="javascript:return">wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de</a>> wrote:<BR>> <BR>> Hi Phil,<BR>> <BR>> thanks for your understanding. Unfortunately we have been pulled into a "we vs. they" constellation which is
grotesk. <BR>> <BR>> I served five years in the NomCom, one year as its chair. We had endless discussion how to send the best people for ICANN and the broader ICANN and Internet community to the Board. The people who made it to the board are - in my understanding - the best people you can get in a given year. They are not hand picked by an outside power which wants to manipulate the community. The NomCom itself is populated by representatives from the community. All SOs, ACs and the constituencies are represented with voting members in the NomCom. I trusted the community that they did send the right people to the NomCom. In my reports to the ICANN Public Forum - when I chaired the NomCom - I always presented the NomCom as the most democratic element in the whole ICANN ecosystem. The community itself selects its representatives (and should have also the right to spill them if they do not meet the expected standards, here I agree with the proposed
enhancements). No CEO, no ICANN chair, no ICANN Board member can tell the NomCom whom to select. The same is true for the seven directors selected/elected by the SOs and ALAC. Do you know how many interviews and discussions take place before the 15 ALAC members vote in favor of one director which goes to the Board? Did you see the debate on the GNSO Seat?<BR>> <BR>> This are very democratic bottom up transparent, diversified and open processes. If you compare this with the population of other for profit or non-for profit boards in the world, this is unique. Do you know how FIFA selects its Executive Committee? Do you know how to become a member of the IOC ExCom? Do you know how Green Peace selects its Board? There are endless back-door meetings (in closeed circles) which produce bodies which are indeed - sometimes - not accountable to the broader public and it is difficult to remove them. <BR>> <BR>> The procedure how to get a seat in the
ICANN Board is - as said above - one of the most impressive achievements we have in the ICANN family. And we should be proud to have such good mechanisms. Additionally the principle of rotation is an extra block against misuse and capture of the board function. The term is just three years for a director. If he did not deliver what was expected, the ACs, SOs and the NomCom has no duty to re-elect/select the candidate. The maximum is three terms (nine years). It was two terms (six years). The extension was made to have a right mix between continuation and presence of history knowledge and innovative newcomers. There is also the democratic element of geographical diversity. BTW, this is one point I miss in the CCWG discussion. How seriously CCWG members take arguments from participants from Africa, Latin America and Asia? <BR>> <BR>> I bring this facts not to undermine the proposed community power of spilling of the board. I was always behind
this extra power for the community to enhance the inner democratic processes. In my eyes there is no need to create a new burocracy to achieve this aim. It can be done on the basis of the tested and workable model. Under the circumstances of the discussion we have today I have my doubt whether we can introduce the same high standard for representatives in a new legal entity in the short time we have (Sole Membership Model). We were fighting over many years to errect barriers aganist caputre in the board. And I am not ready to open now a backdoor for capture in a new entity which has not yet clear rules of procedure how voting and other important elements (including accountability) can be introduced in a way which does not undermine the functioning, stability, security and prosperity of ICANN. I am in favor of power sharing. But I am against power shifting. <BR>> <BR>> As you know I am leaving the board and I will repeat my arguments after Dublin
as a member of the commmunity. I hope that we have more or less finished the discussion at the end of the Dublin Meeting. But there will be a lot of things that we have to do beyond Dublin.<BR>> <BR>> Wolfgang<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I agree this is slippery and dangerous territory, Wolfgang. And I have made clear that I do not agree with that POV.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> However, in its October 1st High Level Response to CCWG Counsel's 29 <BR>> September 2015 Slides, Jones Day states: " proponents of the CCWG's <BR>> Proposal minimize or ignore the fact that the shift to the SMM would <BR>> place a significant amount of power in the hands of individuals and <BR>> stakeholders that hold no fiduciary obligations to ICANN or the global <BR>> stakeholder community. These individuals and stakeholders are free to <BR>> act in their personal interest and are not required to make decisions <BR>> based on what is
best for ICANN, the ICANN community, and the global <BR>> public interest". (Emphasis added)<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> While the Board may credibly state that it has a fiduciary duty to ICANN and makes decisions beside upon what is best for ICANN (and I am not in any way implying that the CCWG and ICANN community make decisions based on anything but what they believe is best for ICANN and its community), it cannot claim to make decisions based on what is best for the ICANN community (since its first duty is to the Corporation, and it is quite evident from the current accountability discussion that its views are at significant variance from those of the community members comprising the CCWG) and it has no greater claim to representing the global public interest than the community from which it is drawn.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Given that it is ICANN's outside Counsel that has raised this charge, which has since been echoed in
Board member communications, perhaps your caution to "be careful" should be directed elsewhere.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Finally, on the matter of the "global public interest", points #2 & 3 of the CCWG Charter states:<BR>> <BR>> 2. If the Board believes it is not in the global public interest to implement a recommendation from the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance (CCWG Recommendation), it must initiate a dialogue with the CCWG. A determination that it is not in the global public interest to implement a CCWG Recommendation requires a 2/3 majority of the Board.<BR>> <BR>> 3. The Board must provide detailed rationale to accompany the initiation of dialogue. The Board shall agree with the CCWG the method (e.g., by teleconference, email or otherwise) by which the dialogue will occur. The discussions shall
be held in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I have previously inquired on this list whether the Board's concerns regarding the Sole member or Designator models amounted to a formal belief that they threatened the global public interest, and I do not recall any statement that they did - much less a formal invoking of the dialogue process provide for in the Charter.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> If the Board believes that either or both of those models does so it would seem appropriate to provide the required detailed rationale and start the dialogue. If it does not, then it seems quite inappropriate and non-constructive for ICANN Counsel to raise a purported threat to the global public interest in their memoranda.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Best,<BR>> <BR>> Philip<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal<BR>>
<BR>> Virtualaw LLC<BR>> <BR>> 1155 F Street, NW<BR>> <BR>> Suite 1050<BR>> <BR>> Washington, DC 20004<BR>> <BR>> 202-559-8597/Direct<BR>> <BR>> 202-559-8750/Fax<BR>> <BR>> 202-255-6172/cell<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Twitter: @VlawDC<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <BR>> [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de" href="javascript:return">wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de</a>]<BR>> Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 1:25 PM<BR>> To: Phil Corwin; Paul Rosenzweig; Guru Acharya<BR>> Cc: CCWG Accountability<BR>> Subject: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Message from ICANN Board re Designator Model<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Hi Phil,<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> this is slippery territory.
If you read Parminders comment that it is only the UN which is the legitimized representative of the global Internet community (via the elected governments of the UN member states). As said in previous comments: There are unintended side-effects of our discussion both for the microcosm of ICANN as well as for the macrocosm of the broader Internet world. Be careful!<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Wolfgang<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----<BR>> <BR>> Von: <BR>> <a ymailto="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" href="javascript:return">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><mailto:accountability<BR>> <a ymailto="mailto:-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" href="javascript:return">-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>> im Auftrag von Phil Corwin<BR>> <BR>> Gesendet: Di 06.10.2015 19:15<BR>> <BR>> An: Paul Rosenzweig;
Guru Acharya<BR>> <BR>> Cc: CCWG Accountability<BR>> <BR>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Message from ICANN Board re Designator Model<BR>> <BR>> I personally do not buy the argument that the ICANN community is insufficiently reflective of the global Internet Community, given the very low barriers to participation as well as the increasing levels of attendance at ICANN meetings and participation in ICANN activities, with greater numbers from the developing world as it comes online.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> However, if the community is not reflective of global Internet diversity then wouldn't the Board members who are drawn from it be equally non-representative? The logical outcome of this criticism is that the Board is equally disqualified from being the steward.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal<BR>> <BR>> Virtualaw LLC<BR>> <BR>> 1155 F Street, NW<BR>> <BR>> Suite
1050<BR>> <BR>> Washington, DC 20004<BR>> <BR>> 202-559-8597/Direct<BR>> <BR>> 202-559-8750/Fax<BR>> <BR>> 202-255-6172/cell<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Twitter: @VlawDC<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> From: <BR>> <a ymailto="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" href="javascript:return">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><mailto:accountability<BR>> <a ymailto="mailto:-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" href="javascript:return">-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>> <BR>> [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" href="javascript:return">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of <BR>> Paul Rosenzweig<BR>> <BR>> Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 12:47 PM<BR>> <BR>> To: Guru Acharya<BR>> <BR>> Cc: CCWG
Accountability<BR>> <BR>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Message from ICANN Board re Designator Model<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Exactly. The Board is demonstrably speaking with situational particularity.. Perhaps it is time we think about selecting different Board members in the next round of elections....<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> --<BR>> <BR>> Sent from myMail app for Android<BR>> <BR>> Tuesday, 06 October 2015, 00:40AM -04:00 from Guru Acharya <<a ymailto="mailto:gurcharya@gmail..com" href="javascript:return">gurcharya@gmail..com</a><mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com" href="javascript:return">gurcharya@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com" href="javascript:return">gurcharya@gmail.com</a>%3cmailto:<a ymailto="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com" href="javascript:return">gurcharya@gmail.com</a>>>>:<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
I strongly agree with Jordan.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I personally find that attitude of the board to be very 'convenient'.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> According to them, ICANN is multistakeholder enough to become the steward of IANA, but the community is not multistakeholder enough to become a member of ICANN. Effectively, we are making ICANN the corporation the steward of IANA and not ICANN the community.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I also find it an extremely convenient argument that 'while entering uncharted territories to make ICANN the steward is very safe; at the same entering uncharted territories to make ICANN a membership organisation is untested and very very unsafe'.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> In the CWG (Stewardship), the board consistently argued that<BR>> <BR>> 1) the CCWG will solve all accountability issues and therefore ICANN should be made the steward.<BR>> <BR>> 2) the ICANN structures are
truly multistakeholder and therefore ICANN <BR>> should be made the steward<BR>> <BR>> 3) entering unchartered territories by making ICANN the steward is <BR>> very very safe<BR>> <BR>> 4) the NTIA may not accept the Contract Co model<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> In complete contrast, in the CCWG (Accountability), the board is <BR>> arguing that<BR>> <BR>> 1) the CCWG should postpone major accountability measures to after the <BR>> transition<BR>> <BR>> 2) the ICANN structures are currently not multistakeholder enough to <BR>> become the members of ICANN<BR>> <BR>> 3) entering unchartered territories by making ICANN a membership organisation is very very unsafe.<BR>> <BR>> 4) the NTIA may not accept the membership model<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I do not find the promises for future change to be trustworthy. I am strongly against pushing something so important and basic to WS2.<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<a ymailto="mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com" href="javascript:return">AAikman@lrrlaw.com</a><//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%<a ymailto="mailto:3aAAikman@lrrlaw.com" href="javascript:return">3aAAikman@lrrlaw.com</a><mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com" href="javascript:return">AAikman@lrrlaw.com</a>%3c//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%<a ymailto="mailto:3aAAikman@lrrlaw.com" href="javascript:return">3aAAikman@lrrlaw.com</a>>>> wrote:<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> @ Jordan - well stated. Postponing truly effective accountability measures developed using the Multistakeholder process in favor of "a review of structure" as suggested strikes me as another recipe for a years-long process the elements of which would take months to agree on in and of themselves - very ineffective.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Anne<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> [<a href="https://af.mail.my.com/cgi-bin/readmsg?id=14441065090000080418;0;0;1&" target=_blank >https://af.mail.my.com/cgi-bin/readmsg?id=14441065090000080418;0;0;1&</a><BR>> mode=attachment&bs=16497&bl=3767&ct=image%2fgif&cn=image001.gif&cte=ba<BR>> se64]<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <a ymailto="mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com" href="javascript:return">AAikman@lrrlaw.com</a><//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%<a ymailto="mailto:3aAAikman@lrrl"
href="javascript:return">3aAAikman@lrrl</a><BR>> aw.com<mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com" href="javascript:return">AAikman@lrrlaw.com</a>%3c//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailt<BR>> o%<a ymailto="mailto:3aAAikman@lrrlaw.com" href="javascript:return">3aAAikman@lrrlaw.com</a>>> | <BR>> www.LRRLaw.com<<a href="http://www.lrrlaw.com/" target=_blank >http://www.lrrlaw.com/</a><<a href="http://www.LRRLaw.com%3chttp:/ww" target=_blank >http://www.LRRLaw.com%3chttp:/ww</a><BR>> w.lrrlaw.com/>><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> From: <BR>> <a ymailto="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" href="javascript:return">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><//e-aj.my.com/compose<BR>>
/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity%<a ymailto="mailto:2dbounces@icann.o" href="javascript:return">2dbounces@icann.o</a><BR>> rg<mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" href="javascript:return">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>%3c//e-aj.my<BR>> .com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity%2dbou<BR>> <a ymailto="mailto:nces@icann..org" href="javascript:return">nces@icann..org</a>>> <BR>> [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" href="javascript:return">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><//e-aj.my.com<BR>> /compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity%2dbounces<BR>> @icann.org><mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" href="javascript:return">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>%3c<BR>>
//e-aj..my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommu<BR>> nity%<a ymailto="mailto:2dbounces@icann.org" href="javascript:return">2dbounces@icann.org</a>%3e>] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter<BR>> <BR>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 7:44 PM<BR>> <BR>> To: Steve Crocker<BR>> <BR>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community<BR>> <BR>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Message from ICANN Board re Designator Model<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Steve, all<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> In finalising the CCWG's proposal, the ICANN board is a stakeholder - an important one.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> It has a later role as a decision-maker, according to criteria that have already been established by Board resolution.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> A careful multi-stakeholder
process over almost a year has analysed the community's requirements and come up with a model that can do it - based around membership.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> The Board has abused its role as a decision-maker in this process. In effect, it has sought to replace the open, public, deliberative proposal development process with its own definition of what the community requires, and its own solution that can deliver its evaluation of those requirements.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> In doing so, it has profoundly challenged the legitimacy of the multi-stakeholder model of decision-making that ICANN and its Board claim to uphold.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Worse, as a matter of process, the Board has attempted to use its decisional role at the end of the Accountability to move the trajectory of debate away from what the
community's requirements, fairly analysed dictate -- trying to force the group to "jump the tracks" and into a solution that is unlikely to be able to deliver on those requirements.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> It's an ugly display of force in what should be a rational and requirements-based conversation.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I sincerely regret the Board's choice as a group to take that approach. The effect is to give fodder to all of those people, countries and groups who have long argued that the entire notion of multi-stakeholder Internet policymaking is a charade, behind which decisions are made simply and alone by "the people who matter".<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> In terms of the CCWG's work, this email combined with your statement in Los Angeles reduce the chances of any consensus being able to emerge between
what the Board has asked for and what the CCWG has developed.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> It leaves me very sad that the groups here (Board and CCWG) have arrived at this position. There is an apparent lack of listening and comprehension; few displays of empathy or willingness to see things from another point of view; and a consequent inability to really talk through and resolve the conflicting perspectives and aims here.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I hoped the Board might make some overtures in that direction. I know I and other CCWG members have been trying to do. To get this sort of response indicates that that attempt serves no further purpose.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> What are others' views about how we proceed from here? I confess myself
mystified.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Look forward to speaking with you all in a few hours.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Cheers<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Jordan<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> On 6 October 2015 at 15:21, Steve Crocker <<a ymailto="mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org" href="javascript:return">steve.crocker@icann.org</a><//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%<a ymailto="mailto:3asteve.crocker@icann.org" href="javascript:return">3asteve.crocker@icann.org</a><mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org" href="javascript:return">steve.crocker@icann.org</a>%3c//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%<a ymailto="mailto:3asteve.crocker@icann..org" href="javascript:return">3asteve.crocker@icann..org</a>>>> wrote:<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> CCWG,<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> We appreciate the continued work that the CCWG is doing to consider the public comments received on its second draft report. Following the Los Angeles F2F we have heard suggestions that a Designator model relying on California statutes may be a replacement for the Sole Member model that was in the second draft report.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> To be clear, the concerns that the Board raised on the Sole Member model still apply to a Designator model. The Designator model still introduces a new legal structure with powers that are intrinsically beyond the structure we have been using. We understand that many believe it is possible to constrain these powers in order to provide established protections, accountability and thresholds: This is unproven territory and will require more detail and time to
understand and test the impact on our bedrock multistakeholder balance.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Further, it is unclear that this would represent the full multistakeholder community because we do not know yet which SO/ACs will join now or later. Moreover, the same community accountability issues present in the Sole Member are present in the Designator model.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Steve del Bianco's constructive suggestion over the weekend that the Board could commit to a future governance structure review triggered by key factors seems like a good path forward. This can be enshrined in a new fundamental bylaw that would require the holding of a future governance structure review if SOs and ACs agree to kick off that review.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> We are all in complete agreement on the objective of
enforcement of the five community powers, with new/stronger mechanisms for board removal if/when necessary. Let's focus on finalizing the details on these consensus elements to enable implementation and a successful transition.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Steve Crocker<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> for the ICANN Board of Directors<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> <BR>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <BR>> <a ymailto="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" href="javascript:return">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto<BR>> =mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%<a ymailto="mailto:2dCommunity@icann.org" href="javascript:return">2dCommunity@icann.org</a><mailto:Accounta<BR>> <a
ymailto="mailto:bility-Cross-Community@icann.org" href="javascript:return">bility-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>%3c//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailt<BR>> o%3aAccountability%2dCross%<a ymailto="mailto:2dCommunity@icann.org" href="javascript:return">2dCommunity@icann.org</a>>><BR>> <BR>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target=_blank >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> --<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Jordan Carter<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Chief Executive<BR>> <BR>> InternetNZ<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)<BR>> <BR>> Email: <BR>> <a ymailto="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz"
href="javascript:return">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ajordan<BR>> @internetnz.net.nz<mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" href="javascript:return">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>%3c//e-aj.my.com/com<BR>> pose/?mailto=mailto%<a ymailto="mailto:3ajordan@internetnz.net.nz" href="javascript:return">3ajordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>>><BR>> <BR>> Skype: jordancarter<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Web: <BR>> www.internetnz.nz<<a href="http://www.internetnz.nz" target=_blank >http://www.internetnz.nz</a><<a href="http://www.internetnz.nz%3c" target=_blank >http://www.internetnz.nz%3c</a><BR>> http:/www.internetnz.nz>><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> A better world through a better Internet<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> This message and any attachments are
intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> <BR>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <BR>> <a ymailto="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
href="javascript:return">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto<BR>> =mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%<a ymailto="mailto:2dCommunity@icann.org" href="javascript:return">2dCommunity@icann.org</a><mailto:Accounta<BR>> <a ymailto="mailto:bility-Cross-Community@icann.org" href="javascript:return">bility-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>%3c//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailt<BR>> o%3aAccountability%2dCross%<a ymailto="mailto:2dCommunity@icann.org" href="javascript:return">2dCommunity@icann.org</a>>><BR>> <BR>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target=_blank >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> <BR>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <BR>> <a ymailto="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
href="javascript:return">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></compose?To=Accountability%2d<BR>> Cross%<a ymailto="mailto:2dCommunity@icann.org" href="javascript:return">2dCommunity@icann.org</a><mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@ican" href="javascript:return">Accountability-Cross-Community@ican</a><BR>> n.org%3c/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%<a ymailto="mailto:2dCommunity@icann.org" href="javascript:return">2dCommunity@icann.org</a>>><BR>> <BR>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target=_blank >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><BR>> <BR>> ________________________________<BR>> <BR>> No virus found in this message.<BR>> <BR>> Checked by AVG - <BR>> www.avg.com<<a href="http://www.avg.com" target=_blank >http://www.avg.com</a><<a href="http://www.avg.com%3chttp:/www.avg.com" target=_blank
>http://www.avg.com%3chttp:/www.avg.com</a>><BR>> ><BR>> <BR>> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <BR>> <a ymailto="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" href="javascript:return">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><BR>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target=_blank >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><BR><BR><BR>-----<BR>No virus found in this message.<BR>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<BR>Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<BR><a
ymailto="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" href="javascript:return">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><BR><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target=_blank >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>