Malcolm and Avri,<div><br></div><div>Both very concise and right on target. Sadly.</div><div><br></div><div>Greg<span></span><br><br>On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Matthew Shears <<a href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org">mshears@cdt.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">+ 1 Avri.<br>
<br>
On 07/10/2015 12:29, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi,<br>
<br>
My reading of this is that if the Board is willing to accept the CCWG<br>
proposals, which do reflect broad agreement, then we can make the<br>
schedule. If, on the the hand the Board continues to go their own way<br>
and stands in opposition to the community, we may not. We need to<br>
complete our work quickly with the fixes and then, as always, it is in<br>
the Board's hands. We have already lost several weeks because of the<br>
spanner thrown when the Board produced their own proposal for<br>
accountability. Just imagine where we would have been had the Board met<br>
with us in LA with the attitude of working with the community instead of<br>
against it.<br>
<br>
I also think the doomsday scenarios are just a bit exaggerated. We have<br>
to stop scaring people with the G77 boogeyman. And if the Protocols and<br>
Number no longer trust ICANN, they will go their own way, whether it is<br>
before transition or after, they have been crystal clear about those<br>
intentions - it could happen anytime - why would the status quo of<br>
continuing NTIA oversight convince them to leave ICANN? I do agree with<br>
point V, if the Board continues to overrule the multistakeholder<br>
process, it will become ever harder to convince people that this is a<br>
workable modality for decision making.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
On 07-Oct-15 06:11, Malcolm Hutty wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 2015-10-07 08:03, Mathieu Weill wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
You will find attached the set of slides that was prepared by ICANN<br>
and presented during the calls.<br>
</blockquote>
Wow, that slide on page 4 ("5 risks we face if the IANA Stewardship<br>
Transition is Delayed/Fails") is a contentious parade of horribles if<br>
ever I saw one!<br>
<br>
Setting that aside as merely disputatious, page 5 ("4 Remaining Questions<br>
on The Road to Transition") is interesting.<br>
<br>
Firstly, the framing - that these are indeed the questions, and the only<br>
gating questions, is certainly open to debate. But the answers don't<br>
currently point to swift completion either.<br>
<br>
Here is my assessment.<br>
<br>
Q. "Do we have broad agreement on ALL the elements to address the CWG<br>
Dependencies?"<br>
<br>
A. Within CCWG, using its proposal as the base: yes.<br>
Between CCWG and Board, on the Board's counter-proposal: Not really.<br>
There is no agreement as to whether the power to challenge the Budget<br>
and Strategic Plan would be effectively available in the absence of<br>
the SMM,<br>
which the Board opposes. Our Counsel raises key concerns about this in<br>
their recent memo comparing the Board proposal with our own.<br>
And this power (or some variant) is noted as being a CWG requirement.<br>
<br>
Q. "Do we have broad agreement on the requirements and enforceability of<br>
the five community powers?"<br>
<br>
A. Within CCWG, on its proposal: yes.<br>
Between CCWG and Board, on the Board's counter-proposal: No. The<br>
enforceability<br>
of the five community powers in the absence of the SMM is a<br>
significant area<br>
of disagreement; there is no agreement within CCWG that the MEM is an<br>
effective<br>
alternative means to ensure enforceability.<br>
<br>
Q "Are the above areas of broad agreement consistent with NTIA<br>
criteria and do<br>
they meet the requirements for a safe/secure transition of U.S.<br>
Government stewardship?"<br>
<br>
A. Within CCWG, we are content that our proposal would achieve this.<br>
Between CCWG and Board, neither party accepts that the other's<br>
proposal would<br>
achieve satisfy the NTIA criteria. For the Board, the CCWG's reforms pose<br>
a risk to "safe and secure" stability of ICANN; for CCWG, the removal<br>
of NTIA<br>
oversight without its replacement by accountability mechanisms that it<br>
agrees<br>
to be effective and enforceable poses just as great a risk, and of<br>
like kind. Moreover,<br>
the Board's counter-proposal omits or reduces* safeguards the CCWG<br>
thought<br>
necessary to guarantee the openness of the Internet, another NTIA<br>
requirement.<br>
<br>
[* Discussion on this hasn't yet concluded; the Board might argue<br>
that it<br>
offers adequate alternatives, and while some in CCWG may have<br>
arrived at<br>
a firm conclusion to the contrary; others may be yet to make up<br>
their minds.<br>
What cannot be contested is that the CCWG as a whole has not has<br>
not yet<br>
accepted the adequacy of the Board's counter in relation to this<br>
particular<br>
NTIA criterion, which stands independently and complementary to<br>
the "safe and<br>
secure" criterion. See also below for comments on the need for a<br>
systematic<br>
re-evaluation.]<br>
<br>
Q. Do we have broad agreement on an assured process to continuously<br>
improve ICANN’s<br>
accountability and evolve its governance structure?<br>
<br>
A. Not really. CCWG has tasked itself with addressing in WS1 only<br>
those items that<br>
must be addressed before transition, and has chosen to leave<br>
everything else to a<br>
WS2 that it trusts will be continued. The Board seemingly proposes<br>
closing down CCWG upon<br>
transition, ending WS2 as a distinct programme and leaving those<br>
issues to be<br>
addressed by disparate parts of the community (although it is not<br>
clear that the<br>
SOs even have the capacity to initiate proposals on all WS2 issues).<br>
So there is<br>
no agreement between CCWG and the Board on the process for continuous<br>
improvement<br>
either.<br>
<br>
Once again, an overview from ICANN that seems intended to force the<br>
pace actually<br>
shows how much still remains to be agreed. Perhaps this will persuade<br>
the Board to<br>
rethink its opposition to the considered view of the community, worked<br>
on by this<br>
group so intensively for almost a year.<br>
<br>
One thing the slidedeck does usefully point up is that before agreeing<br>
to abandon its<br>
proposal in favour of the Board's counter, even if it were minded to<br>
do so, CCWG<br>
would need to do a full re-evaluation against the NTIA criteria and<br>
stress tests<br>
to determine its adequacy. Our assessment of how our proposal<br>
satisfies the stress tests<br>
is only an assessment of OUR proposal, not of the Board's counter.<br>
<br>
Accordingly, if the Board remains unwilling to accept the<br>
cross-community proposal,<br>
this slidedeck suggests to me that expectations management, rather<br>
than "racing<br>
to the finish line", is the more prudent course of action.<br>
<br>
That further demonstrates how unhelpful and counter-productive is the<br>
scaremongering<br>
on page 4.<br>
<br>
Malcolm.<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a>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>
</blockquote>
<br>
-- <br>
<br>
Matthew Shears<br>
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights<br>
Center for Democracy & Technology<br>
<a>mshears@cdt.org</a><br>
+ 44 771 247 2987<br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a>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>
</blockquote></div>