<div dir="ltr">Hi Greg,<div><br></div><div>While I support WS2, I see it as a blunt instrument. </div><div><br></div><div>The definition of WS 2 is "All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided the mechanisms in WS1 are adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board."</div><div><br></div><div>I believe we have reached a point where WS1 does not provide mechanisms that are adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board.</div><div><br></div><div>While I understand that the community may want to spill the board if it rejects WS2 recommendations in toto. But I do not see the community spilling the board if </div><div>(i) the board only partially implements WS2 recommendations; or </div><div>(iii) the board implements a modified version of WS2 recommendations </div><div><br></div><div>Would we topple the entire board if the board accepted all recommendations in WS2 except for just DIDP reforms? Would we topple the entire board if the board implements a modified version of DIDP by selectively adding just one additional restriction criteria? Would we topple the entire board because the board agrees to give advance notice of board meetings by 2 days instead of 5 days as demanded by the community? </div><div><br></div><div>As Avri pointed out, we will create a system of confrontation by adopting the designator model wherein everyone would need to be prepared to spill the board at the drop of a hat for any kind of enforcement. Instead, the membership model would have avoided confrontation by distributing responsibility to the community thereby promoting cooperation and the multistakeholder model.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Greg Shatan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend, protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.). </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on that point. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b>We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.</b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b><br></b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b><br></b></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>