<HTML><BODY><p style='margin-top: 0px;' dir="ltr">We do not have agreement on the essential elements. The Board keeps saying that and the lawyers keep saying they are wrong. The Board's offer is a chimera.</p>
<p dir="ltr">--<br>
Paul<br>
Sent from myMail app for Android</p>
Thursday, 08 October 2015, 09:47AM +01:00 from Roelof Meijer <<a href="mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl">Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl</a>>:<br><br><blockquote style='border-left:1px solid #FC2C38; margin:0px 0px 0px 10px; padding:0px 0px 0px 10px;' cite="14442941420000080691">
<div class="js-helper js-readmsg-msg">
<style type="text/css"></style>
<div >
<base target="_self" href="https://e-aj.my.com/" />
<div id="style_14442941420000080691_BODY">-1<br>
<br>
>"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.²<br>
<br>
Counterproductive, in my opinion. Let¹s not suggest that the community is<br>
in full agreement on the 2nd draft CCWG proposal, it is not.<br>
Let¹s not suggest that the board is (nothing but) working against us, it<br>
is not. We have agreement on the most important ingredients of the<br>
proposal: specific powers for the community that can be enforced. We do<br>
not have agreement on the mechanism to implement these. If we want that,<br>
and I assume we do, both the board AND we have to change the way we<br>
communicate and collaborate with each other.<br>
Let¹s stay focussed on our mission, our goals and bridging the gap.<br>
Enlarging it, will only help us fail.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Roelof Meijer<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 07-10-15 13:29, "<a href="/compose?To=accountability%2dcross%2dcommunity%2dbounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> on<br>
behalf of Avri Doria" <<a href="/compose?To=accountability%2dcross%2dcommunity%2dbounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> on<br>
behalf of <a href="/compose?To=avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>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>
>> On 2015-10-07 08:03, Mathieu Weill wrote:<br>
>>> You will find attached the set of slides that was prepared by ICANN<br>
>>> and presented during the calls.<br>
>><br>
>> 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<br>
>>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<br>
>>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 ICANN¹s<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>
><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 href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">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>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">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>
</div>
<base target="_self" href="https://e-aj.my.com/" />
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></BODY></HTML>