[Area 1] Sub Group 1 - Preliminary Draft

Fri Dec 26 10:34:44 UTC 2014

Dear All,
Please find below/ attached my comment as participants to the ICANN
comments on CWG activities
I have converted the PDF in word but some times it did not properly
converted .
I am sorry for that
Kavouss

2014-12-26 10:00 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

> Dear All,
> I support Mathieu .
> Moreover, there is now a relase from Board for public comments on the
> activities of CWG( NOT CCWG) That document has elements which seems highly
> criticising the works being done by CWG.
> I strongly recommand to put that document for review by all 4 working
> groups.
> Now a comment to Thomas and Mathieu
> I have reviewed that Board doc. I will send you my comments
> However, after the establishment of CCWG, hard works of you two dear
> colleagues
> Hard works of WG chairs
> Hard works of contributing persons
> MORE THAN 10 SESSIONS
> iF FINALLY board would have a VETO on that entire work
> I suggest we stop any activity on CCWG
> There is senseless and counterproductive ,if we spent hours and hours to
> discuss, participation in Calls at  0100  or 06,00 UTC and other calls ,
> reviewing many background doc. watching all ICANN ALLERT preparing
> documents , discussing them, revising them, correcting them and at the end
> Board sasy NO  THIS IS AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST.
> That working method is totally unacceptable.
> Pls put the issue of Board Veto to the output of CCWG at our next meetings
> agenda.
> Kavouss
>
> 2014-12-26 9:36 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>:
>
>> Bruce:
>>
>> Thank you for your contribution to the dialogue.
>>
>> This email addresses two issues, the first of which is the propriety of
>> the Board as a whole and individual members weighing in on the discussion
>> taking place within stewardship and accountability work streams. Noting
>> that in the "ICANN Board Comments on Cross Community Working Group (CWG)
>> Draft Transition Proposal for Naming Related Functions"
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-naming-transition-01dec14/pdf20pTv25T9l.pdf
>> states "We have been conscious of two guideposts during this process: to
>> remain fairly silent so as not to attempt or seem to be attempting to
>> inappropriately influence the process, and, at the same time to share our
>> thinking with the community." That appears to be as reasonable a
>> description as any of the proper bounds of collective Board and individual
>> member input, although I would think that the community would benefit from
>> the Board's actual experience as well as its thinking. I have no doubt that
>> if the Board's participation is ever perceived as attempting to
>> inappropriately influence the process the community participants will have
>> no hesitation in pointing that out.
>>
>> Of more substantive concern are your comments that " the most difficult
>> decisions for Board directors have been on matters in the public interest"
>> and that " The interesting thing about making a decision in the public
>> interest is that it is usually subjective and often subject to the cultural
>> backgrounds and experiences of the individual Board directors". The Board's
>> October 16th Resolution, "Board Consideration of Recommendations from the
>> Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability"
>> https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d
>> states " 2.If the Board believes it is not in the global public interest to
>> implement a recommendation from the Cross Community Working Group on
>> Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance (CCWG Recommendation), it
>> must initiate a dialogue with the CCWG. A determination that it is not in
>> the global public interest to implement a CCWG Recommendation requires a
>> 2/3 majority of the Board." This means that the final work product of this
>> CCWG will, by your own evaluation, be evaluated -- and significant
>> provisions possibly rejected -- based upon a subjective standard subject to
>> the individual cultural backgrounds and experiences of Board members. That
>> is concerning, although hopefully the final recommendations will be so
>> broadly supported within the community that Board cherry-picking will be
>> limited or nonexistent.
>>
>> What is most concerning is that the community has little or any
>> information by which to judge how the Board has reached difficult decisions
>> on public interest matters in the past. As you note in regard to the .XXX
>> decision, "Several directors spent considerable time preparing their own
>> personal statements on that matter that were delivered in the public
>> forum." Similarly, I remember a vigorous public debate and statements when
>> the Board voted to let the new gTLD program proceed and accept
>> applications. But we no longer have public Board meetings, and the
>> materials released pertaining to Board meetings are quite opaque regarding
>> how decisions are reached or whether dissents took place, and of course we
>> have no transcripts of Board meetings or access to other relevant
>> communications related to Board decision-making. I do note that the October
>> 16th resolution further states that a rationale will be provided for any
>> Board rejection of CCWG recommendations, and a further dialogue initiated,
>> but that is still inferior to being able to witness or at least read the
>> full Board debate on such matters.
>>
>> It has been widely recognized that transparency is a fundamental
>> requirement for accountability, yet the transparency of the Board's
>> decision-making process is greatly lacking at present. I know that view
>> prevails within the Commercial Stakeholders Group, and my perception is
>> that other parts of the community share it as well. It is my hope that this
>> CCWG process will lead to much greater transparency in that area and that
>> the Board will recognize that such transparency is very much in the global
>> public interest.
>>
>> With best regards,
>> Philip
>>
>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>> Virtualaw LLC
>> 1155 F Street, NW
>> Suite 1050
>> Washington, DC 20004
>> 202-559-8597/Direct
>> 202-559-8750/Fax
>> 202-255-6172/cell
>>
>> Twitter: @VlawDC
>>
>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ccwg-accountability1-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
>> ccwg-accountability1-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
>> Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 8:13 PM
>> To: ccwg-accountability1 at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [Area 1] Sub Group 1 - Preliminary Draft
>>
>> Hello Roelof,
>>
>>
>> >>  As long as the best interests of ICANN the corporation and the
>> „public interest” are aligned (or are so in the opinion of the board) all
>> is probably well. If they are not, if the are not in the opinion of the
>> board, or if the board misinterprets the public interests and/or the
>> corporations interests, problems arise.
>>
>> Just reflecting on your statement above.   I have been on the ICANN Board
>> now as a director for approximately 7 years.   In that time the most
>> difficult decisions for Board directors have been on matters in the public
>> interest.   The decisions related to the "corporation", such as appointing
>> auditors, CEOs etc have usually been unanimous.
>>
>> The interesting thing about making a decision in the public interest is
>> that it is usually subjective and often subject to the cultural backgrounds
>> and experiences of the individual Board directors.
>>
>>  For example after the decision of the Independent Review panel on .xxx,
>> the easiest thing for the Board to do would have been to just endorse the
>> decision.   However individual Board directors still spent considerable
>> time considering the issue from a public interest perspective.    The final
>> decision was not unanimous, yet each of the individual Board directors felt
>> they were making a decision in the public interest.   Several directors
>> spent considerable time preparing their own personal statements on that
>> matter that were delivered in the public forum.
>>
>> Ultimately one of the strengths of the Board is that it is quite big -
>> (16 voting members) and also quite diverse (people from 5 geographic
>> regions with a range of cultural backgrounds and a range of life
>> experience).   The exact cultural composition of the Board varies from year
>> to year, but on matters of public interest there has always been a great
>> diversity of viewpoints.
>>
>> For me it has always been a privilege to spend time with such a group of
>> people that are devoted to the public interest.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bruce Tonkin
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ccwg-accountability1 mailing list
>> Ccwg-accountability1 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4253/8773 - Release Date: 12/20/14
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ccwg-accountability1 mailing list
>> Ccwg-accountability1 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability1/attachments/20141226/542f82a0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICANN COMMENTS  on CWG Naming - final ao 2014-12-221.docx Comments.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 58643 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability1/attachments/20141226/542f82a0/ICANNCOMMENTSonCWGNaming-finalao2014-12-221.docxComments-0001.docx>