<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">+1 to Roelofs -1 :-)<br class=""><div class="">
<p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; font-family: Helvetica; min-height: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class=""></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 13px; line-height: normal; font-family: Verdana; color: rgb(148, 67, 251); letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">Cheers,</p><p class="p3" style="margin: 0px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 13px; line-height: normal; font-family: Verdana; color: rgb(148, 67, 251); min-height: 16px; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><br class=""></p><p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 13px; line-height: normal; font-family: Verdana; color: rgb(148, 67, 251); letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">Chris</p>
</div>
<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 8 Oct 2015, at 19:47 , Roelof Meijer <<a href="mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl" class="">Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">-1<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">"the Board continues to go their own way<br class="">and stands in opposition to the community, we may not. We need to<br class="">complete our work quickly with the fixes and then, as always, it is in<br class="">the Board's hands. We have already lost several weeks because of the<br class="">spanner thrown when the Board produced their own proposal for<br class="">accountability. Just imagine where we would have been had the Board met<br class="">with us in LA with the attitude of working with the community instead of<br class="">against it.²<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">Counterproductive, in my opinion. Letıs not suggest that the community is<br class="">in full agreement on the 2nd draft CCWG proposal, it is not.<br class="">Letıs not suggest that the board is (nothing but) working against us, it<br class="">is not. We have agreement on the most important ingredients of the<br class="">proposal: specific powers for the community that can be enforced. We do<br class="">not have agreement on the mechanism to implement these. If we want that,<br class="">and I assume we do, both the board AND we have to change the way we<br class="">communicate and collaborate with each other.<br class="">Letıs stay focussed on our mission, our goals and bridging the gap.<br class="">Enlarging it, will only help us fail.<br class=""><br class="">Best,<br class=""><br class="">Roelof Meijer<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On 07-10-15 13:29, "<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" class="">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> on<br class="">behalf of Avri Doria" <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" class="">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> on<br class="">behalf of <a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" class="">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Hi,<br class=""><br class="">My reading of this is that if the Board is willing to accept the CCWG<br class="">proposals, which do reflect broad agreement, then we can make the<br class="">schedule. If, on the the hand the Board continues to go their own way<br class="">and stands in opposition to the community, we may not. We need to<br class="">complete our work quickly with the fixes and then, as always, it is in<br class="">the Board's hands. We have already lost several weeks because of the<br class="">spanner thrown when the Board produced their own proposal for<br class="">accountability. Just imagine where we would have been had the Board met<br class="">with us in LA with the attitude of working with the community instead of<br class="">against it.<br class=""><br class="">I also think the doomsday scenarios are just a bit exaggerated. We have<br class="">to stop scaring people with the G77 boogeyman. And if the Protocols and<br class="">Number no longer trust ICANN, they will go their own way, whether it is<br class="">before transition or after, they have been crystal clear about those<br class="">intentions - it could happen anytime - why would the status quo of<br class="">continuing NTIA oversight convince them to leave ICANN? I do agree with<br class="">point V, if the Board continues to overrule the multistakeholder<br class="">process, it will become ever harder to convince people that this is a<br class="">workable modality for decision making.<br class=""><br class="">avri<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On 07-Oct-15 06:11, Malcolm Hutty wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On 2015-10-07 08:03, Mathieu Weill wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">You will find attached the set of slides that was prepared by ICANN<br class="">and presented during the calls.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">Wow, that slide on page 4 ("5 risks we face if the IANA Stewardship<br class="">Transition is Delayed/Fails") is a contentious parade of horribles if<br class="">ever I saw one!<br class=""><br class="">Setting that aside as merely disputatious, page 5 ("4 Remaining<br class="">Questions<br class="">on The Road to Transition") is interesting.<br class=""><br class="">Firstly, the framing - that these are indeed the questions, and the only<br class="">gating questions, is certainly open to debate. But the answers don't<br class="">currently point to swift completion either.<br class=""><br class="">Here is my assessment.<br class=""><br class="">Q. "Do we have broad agreement on ALL the elements to address the CWG<br class="">Dependencies?"<br class=""><br class="">A. Within CCWG, using its proposal as the base: yes.<br class="">Between CCWG and Board, on the Board's counter-proposal: Not really.<br class="">There is no agreement as to whether the power to challenge the Budget<br class="">and Strategic Plan would be effectively available in the absence of<br class="">the SMM,<br class="">which the Board opposes. Our Counsel raises key concerns about this in<br class="">their recent memo comparing the Board proposal with our own.<br class="">And this power (or some variant) is noted as being a CWG requirement.<br class=""><br class="">Q. "Do we have broad agreement on the requirements and enforceability of<br class="">the five community powers?"<br class=""><br class="">A. Within CCWG, on its proposal: yes.<br class="">Between CCWG and Board, on the Board's counter-proposal: No. The<br class="">enforceability<br class="">of the five community powers in the absence of the SMM is a<br class="">significant area<br class="">of disagreement; there is no agreement within CCWG that the MEM is an<br class="">effective<br class="">alternative means to ensure enforceability.<br class=""><br class="">Q "Are the above areas of broad agreement consistent with NTIA<br class="">criteria and do<br class="">they meet the requirements for a safe/secure transition of U.S.<br class="">Government stewardship?"<br class=""><br class="">A. Within CCWG, we are content that our proposal would achieve this.<br class="">Between CCWG and Board, neither party accepts that the other's<br class="">proposal would<br class="">achieve satisfy the NTIA criteria. For the Board, the CCWG's reforms<br class="">pose<br class="">a risk to "safe and secure" stability of ICANN; for CCWG, the removal<br class="">of NTIA<br class="">oversight without its replacement by accountability mechanisms that it<br class="">agrees<br class="">to be effective and enforceable poses just as great a risk, and of<br class="">like kind. Moreover,<br class="">the Board's counter-proposal omits or reduces* safeguards the CCWG<br class="">thought<br class="">necessary to guarantee the openness of the Internet, another NTIA<br class="">requirement.<br class=""><br class=""> [* Discussion on this hasn't yet concluded; the Board might argue<br class="">that it<br class=""> offers adequate alternatives, and while some in CCWG may have<br class="">arrived at<br class=""> a firm conclusion to the contrary; others may be yet to make up<br class="">their minds.<br class=""> What cannot be contested is that the CCWG as a whole has not has<br class="">not yet<br class=""> accepted the adequacy of the Board's counter in relation to this<br class="">particular<br class=""> NTIA criterion, which stands independently and complementary to<br class="">the "safe and<br class=""> secure" criterion. See also below for comments on the need for a<br class="">systematic<br class=""> re-evaluation.]<br class=""><br class="">Q. Do we have broad agreement on an assured process to continuously<br class="">improve ICANNıs<br class="">accountability and evolve its governance structure?<br class=""><br class="">A. Not really. CCWG has tasked itself with addressing in WS1 only<br class="">those items that<br class="">must be addressed before transition, and has chosen to leave<br class="">everything else to a<br class="">WS2 that it trusts will be continued. The Board seemingly proposes<br class="">closing down CCWG upon<br class="">transition, ending WS2 as a distinct programme and leaving those<br class="">issues to be<br class="">addressed by disparate parts of the community (although it is not<br class="">clear that the<br class="">SOs even have the capacity to initiate proposals on all WS2 issues).<br class="">So there is<br class="">no agreement between CCWG and the Board on the process for continuous<br class="">improvement<br class="">either.<br class=""><br class="">Once again, an overview from ICANN that seems intended to force the<br class="">pace actually<br class="">shows how much still remains to be agreed. Perhaps this will persuade<br class="">the Board to<br class="">rethink its opposition to the considered view of the community, worked<br class="">on by this<br class="">group so intensively for almost a year.<br class=""><br class="">One thing the slidedeck does usefully point up is that before agreeing<br class="">to abandon its<br class="">proposal in favour of the Board's counter, even if it were minded to<br class="">do so, CCWG<br class="">would need to do a full re-evaluation against the NTIA criteria and<br class="">stress tests<br class="">to determine its adequacy. Our assessment of how our proposal<br class="">satisfies the stress tests<br class="">is only an assessment of OUR proposal, not of the Board's counter.<br class=""><br class="">Accordingly, if the Board remains unwilling to accept the<br class="">cross-community proposal,<br class="">this slidedeck suggests to me that expectations management, rather<br class="">than "racing<br class="">to the finish line", is the more prudent course of action.<br class=""><br class="">That further demonstrates how unhelpful and counter-productive is the<br class="">scaremongering<br class="">on page 4.<br class=""><br class="">Malcolm.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><br class="">---<br class="">This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br class=""><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" class="">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br class="">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" class="">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></span></body></html>