<div dir="ltr">Hi all<div><br></div><div>I'm pretty optimistic about what we can achieve in Dublin starting Friday. I've set out why in a blog post which I copy below. A tidy PDF version is attached.</div><div><br></div><div>Hope you are feeling optimistic too, and are planning to participate in the push to consensus.</div><div><br></div><div>As ever, look forward to your feedback.</div><div><br></div><div>cheers,</div><div>Jordan</div><div><br clear="all"><div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:Calibri"><b><font size="4">Hopes for Dublin</font></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">12 October 2015<br>
Online: </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://internetnz.nz/blog/hopes-dublin"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">https://internetnz.nz/blog/hopes-dublin</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">As the 54<sup>th</sup>
ICANN Meeting in Dublin approaches, CCWG-Accountability member and InternetNZ Chief Executive Jordan Carter
sets out his hopes for the meeting, and his firm conviction that a path to
consensus and speedy resolution of the accountability debate is open – and
should be grabbed.</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">It’s crunch time.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">In Dublin starting
this Friday, a significant test faces the Internet community and ICANN. A real
opportunity is there for consensus to emerge around a solid plan for
improvements to ICANN’s accountability. These are improvements that would see
the completion of the accountability framework for ICANN's stewardship of the
IANA functions (alongside what is in place for the other communities (numbers
and protocols)).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Making that happen is
going to require everyone to be flexible. That's a challenge, but an achievable
one.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">By way of context,
the CCWG is one of the two tracks of the IANA Stewardship transition, together
with the ICG. Both are working to make ICANN an effective steward of the
Internet's domain name system and a responsible, secure & reliable operator
of the IANA Functions for the three operational communities (names, numbers and
protocols). The CCWG's working method has been a multistakeholder one, in
keeping with how the Internet community makes policy best.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">After starting work
at the end of 2014, the CCWG released a first draft proposal for how to improve
ICANN's accountability in May, and a second in August. Since public comments on
the second draft proposal closed a month ago, the CCWG has been analysing the
feedback offered by the community, and has also spent time in a side effort to
understand the logic behind the Board’s counter-proposal.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">In parallel, as has
been the case after each moment of public feedback, CCWG participants have been
thinking through how to take the proposal to the next level – taking the
feedback into account, clarifying the proposal, thinking about how to change
and improve things for a final effort at a proposal that can be tested for
consensus.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Compared with the
most recent draft, here are some key changes that are part of the discussion
that could lead to a new synthesis:</span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 6pt 35.7pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol">·<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">A consensus approach for decisions about using the new
community powers proposed by the CCWG (replacing the voting-based system)</span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 6pt 35.7pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol">·<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Much clearer explanation of how the reserve powers the
CCWG has been dealing with fit into and build on existing ICANN processes
(particularly the importance of consultation and collaboration <b>before</b> community powers come into play)</span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 6pt 35.7pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol">·<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">The replacement of a membership model with a
designator model (which would reduce the direct enforceability of some of the
community powers, but would guarantee that board/director removals and bylaws
change approvals were beyond question – and which arguably is consistent with
how ICANN operates today)</span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 6pt 35.7pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol">·<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">A commitment to continuous improvement of ICANN’s
accountability (including perhaps through a longer-term governance review)</span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 6pt 35.7pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol">·<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Retention of the basic framework of improved review
and redress through a stronger IRP, fundamental bylaws and so on </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">The above synthesis
gives all key parties some wins: the basic framework of the CCWG’s work would
be intact, the model of multistakeholder policy development upheld, many of the
Board’s concerns taken into account, and no significant delays added to slow
the transition down. Legal advisors and CCWG members have been fleshing out
this approach, ready for discussion on Friday.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">It seems to me that
it would be viable to complete a proposal along these lines and have it out for
public comment before the end of the year, and SO/AC approval early in 2016.
That’s probably the fastest possible, without putting at risk the quality of
the proposal. And since we’ve done that twice, and caused confusion and concern
by skimping time to get the proposal clear and readable, it isn’t sensible to
make the same mistake a third time.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">To me that looks like
an outcome worth trying very hard for – and if we can manage it, an outcome to
be very happy with.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">As ever, there are
some risks.</span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 6pt 35.7pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol">·<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Some participants have started throwing bottom lines
around. Those participants need to back off that, otherwise the chances of a
consensus being achievable become very small.</span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 6pt 35.7pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol">·<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">There may be a temptation for the ICANN Board to “box
the CCWG in”, trying to monster it or the community into adopting a proposal
that doesn’t meet the community’s accountability requirements in the name of
timeliness. (In a separate post<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class=""><span class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt">[1]</span></span></span></a>
I have already pointed out that it is ICANN that is responsible for the time
pressure, so the irony of an approach like this would be rich.)</span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 6pt 35.7pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol">·<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">The technical communities – numbers and protocols –
could lose confidence that this accountability process, which is best seen as a
"catch up" for names to attain accountability as good as protocols
and numbers already have - will ever conclude. Yet if it doesn't, the
accountability framework for the IANA functions would be incomplete. This in
turn could risk the integrity of ICANN and its role as the IANA Functions
Operator for the three communities.</span></p>
<p class="" style="margin:0cm 0cm 6pt 35.7pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol">·<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">The ICANN leadership could make a mistake with the
Dublin meeting, and try to repeat the failed pressure tactics it tried with the
CCWG in September (on calls and in Los Angeles) – to put it politely, such an
approach would be sure to backfire and reduce the chance of consensus being
reached.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">The bigger picture
regarding risk here, which plays on my mind a lot, has to do with the fact that
the world’s eyes are on us.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">If the ICANN
community cannot arrive at a consensus for accountability improvements, the
chances are that the IANA Stewardship transition will be unnecessarily delayed
– possibly not even being complete by 30 September 2016. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">A further delay (and
it would only be a delay – the cat is out of the bag, and the transition is
inevitable – it’s only a question of when) would have a stack of downsides.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">It would embolden
critics of the multistakeholder model.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">It would annoy and
exasperate the technical communities, risking the effort to have a single IANA
Functions Operator serving all three communities. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">It would be a red
light for Congress in paying very close attention to what is going on.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">It would be an
admission that the players in the ICANN environment can’t reach consensus on an
important issue – not a great advertisement for a model that is premised on
achieving consensus as its main strength in legitimately coordinating the
Internet’s system of unique identifiers.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">High stakes for all
of us. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">It’s reasonable to
have some optimism about the chances of a consensus emerging. Nobody’s
interests are compromised by the sort of synthesis the CCWG is working on.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">As we count down the
days to Dublin, let’s recommit ourselves to building an accountability settlement
that works. Let’s remind ourselves that consensus and being flexible isn’t
about “losing” anything and doesn’t have to be about second-bests.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">It really can be a
collaborative, open process that brings all of us to a better place.
Idealistic? I don’t think so: it’s why I support ICANN, it’s why I support the
transition, and it’s why I want us to succeed this week and next. It’s a model
that works. Let’s use it. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">That’s my hope for
Dublin – a hope I welcome you to share and to turn into reality.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Jordan Carter</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.nz"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">jordan@internetnz.nz</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"></span></p>
<div><br clear="all">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<div id="ftn1">
<p class=""><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri"><span class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10pt">[1]</span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri">See </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://internetnz.nz/blog/icann-accountability-chronology-and-dublin-thoughts"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri">https://internetnz.nz/blog/icann-accountability-chronology-and-dublin-thoughts</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Calibri"></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>