[CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC

Sun Jan 4 17:04:35 UTC 2015

On a lighter note, I thought to share, first off New Years greetings to all
and something I penned.
We do sometimes need to smile,
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/twas-copyright-theft-victims-revenge-night-before-carrie-devorah
Sincerely
Carrie Devorah
Founder
THE CENTER FOR COPYRIGHT INTEGRITY
www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com

On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> Could I just throw an observation about the current setup in here, having
> watched ICANN both externally and internally (both community and
> corporation) for more than a decade.
>
> We are taking the presumption that the Board is not only the group that
> ultimately makes the decisions but also the group that keeps the
> corporation in check on more everyday, operational matters.
>
> I would argue that this approach consistently fails because the Board
> cannot be expected to see and follow everything. It is also ends up
> concentrating too much power and reliance on that power in too few hands.
>
> It also provides opportunities for the Board to make bad decisions (like a
> 10-year lease on an unused building, or a investment strategy tied too
> closely to a failing stock market, or wage packages that are far too high,
> or expense accounts with no apparent limits, or an internet governance
> strategy that upsets the entire technical community, and so on).
>
> Rather than focus solely on how to get the Board to listen more closely
> before making a decision (which is of course vital), we should also
> consider how to allow the community to assist in the running of ICANN.
> Rather than rely on the Board of a Corporation to do everything.
>
> We should try to break down some of the Them vs Us attitude that exists
> within the corporation, which is behind many of the problems.
>
> One of many ways to do this would be an improved information release
> policy with a staff-and-community committee in charge.
>
> In fact, pulling staff more into the community by having joint committees
> (rather than have staff as secretaries) to solve corporate-specific issues
> should help break down barriers and build trust.
>
> Opening up the current Board committees to community members would also
> help enormously. There is no real reason why it should only be staff and
> Board on these committees (I have sat on or in many of them and community
> members would have been useful many times).
>
> There are lots of other possibilities but you get my general point. Let's
> open things up, ICANN is no longer under existential threat. It's time to
> reflect that and help it grow into what it should be.
>
>
> Kieren
>
> -
> [sent through phone]
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at actonline.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I think the primary problem with this approach is that accountability
>> issues *currently*, not to mention in the hypothetical future have to do
>> with more than scope creep. Everyone is up in arms about that issue in
>> particular because of recent events but we need to think more broadly about
>> what might happen in the future and come up with a true accountability
>> mechanism, in WS1, and I content it will be DIFFICULT to get through the
>> board but necessary. This isn’t about what the board will accept, it’s
>> about what the community NEEDS for an accountable ICANN going forward.
>>
>>
>>
>>  *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
>> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Robin
>> Gross
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:23 PM
>> *To:* Paul Rosenzweig
>> *Cc:* 'Brenda Brewer'; 'Accountability Cross Community'
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on
>> 30 December at 19:00 UTC
>>
>>
>>
>> I support this proposal and believe having this dialogue with the board
>> upfront will help us to know where to focus our work going forward.
>>
>>
>>
>> We can debate where to draw the line, but I think many would find the
>> current wording the Articles of Incorporation to be so vague and broad that
>> it hasn't provided any form of backstop in the past to mission-creep and so
>> must be narrowed and clarified.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>  Robin
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 30, 2014, at 2:39 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>   All
>>
>>
>>
>>  As a follow up to our discussion on today’s call and in reference to my
>> point that OUR work on accountability is highly dependent on what the
>> Board/ICANN will or will not agree to, may I propose that our Chairs send
>> to the Board and the ICANN CEO a communication roughly along the following
>> lines:
>>
>>
>>
>>  The Cross-Community Working Group on accountability measures has been
>> considering many accountability mechanisms to recommend concerning the
>> prospective governance of ICANN.   Many members and participants in the
>> CCWG have tentatively concluded that the nature and scope of the CCWG’s
>> recommendations  is dependent upon knowing whether or not the Board and
>> ICANN will agree to certain fundamental limitations on Board authority.
>> Accordingly, the CCWG requests direct input from the Board and/or CEO on
>> the following question:
>>
>>
>>
>>  “Will the Board agree, in principle, to accept accountability
>> recommendations that a) restrict (either through Bylaw amendment or
>> contract) the scope of ICANN activity exclusively to management and
>> operation of the IANA function; and b) that provides an independent
>> mechanism (whether through outside arbiter or internal review by a standing
>> community group) by which alleged attempts by the Board/ICANN to exceed
>> that narrow scope of authority may be adjudicated and, if necessary,
>> restrained?
>>
>>
>>
>>  If the Board is fundamentally willing to accept such limitations then
>> remaining accountability mechanisms may be reasonably limited to proposals
>> that relate to the successful implementation of the IANA function itself.
>> If the Board and ICANN are, however, not willing to accept such limitations
>> on their own authority then many members of the CCWG believe that
>> accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG will need to be
>> commensurately broadened.”
>>
>>
>>
>>  I do not, of course, care terribly much about the specific language we
>> use.  My goal, however, is to find a way to get Board input into our
>> decision making at a point where it can significantly narrow (or
>> substantially broadened) our field of consideration.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Perhaps more to the point, simply asking the question creates
>> information – if the Board is unable or unwilling to answer at all (or if
>> it answers in the negative) that would, in and of itself, justify the
>> community in seeking a broader accountability package.  By contrast, if the
>> Board answers affirmatively, then our task is much simpler – we need to
>> reach consensus on the critical WS0 board control mechanisms and then add
>> only the IANA function-related mechanisms we deem necessary.
>>
>>
>>
>>  So … my proposal is simply that the Chairs of our WG find some way of
>> both asking this question formally and getting a formal answer for us at
>> the earliest practicable opportunity.
>>
>>
>>
>>  I wish everyone a very healthy and happy new year.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Warm regards
>>
>>  Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>   ***NOTE:  OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ****
>>
>>  509 C St. NE
>>
>>  Washington, DC 20002
>>
>>
>>
>>  Paul Rosenzweig
>>
>>  paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> <paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
>>
>>  O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>>
>>  M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>>
>>  Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
>>
>>  Link to my PGP Key
>> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
>>
>>
>>
>>   *From:* Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org
>> <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>]
>> *Sent:* Monday, December 29, 2014 8:16 AM
>> *To:* Accountability Cross Community
>> *Cc:* Brenda Brewer
>> *Subject:* [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30
>> December at 19:00 UTC
>>
>>
>>
>>   Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>>   Please find below the proposed agenda for the CCWG-Accountability call
>> on 30 December at 19:00 UTC. I will send to call details to the Notify
>> list.
>>
>>
>>
>>    *Proposed Agenda*:
>>
>>    1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statements of Interest
>>
>>   2. Membership Updates
>>
>>   3. Work Area Updates
>>
>>   WA1 – David Maher / Samantha Eisner
>>
>>   WA2 – Steve DelBianco
>>
>>   WA3 – Avri Doria
>>
>>   WA4 – Eric Brunner-Williams
>>
>>   4. Coordination between CWG and ICG
>>
>>   5. Expectations for the F2F
>>
>>   6. AOB
>>
>>   7. Closing Remarks
>>
>>   _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>

-- 
Sincerely
CARRIE Devorah
 562 688 2883

DISCLAIMER :
With the continuing crossing and interfacing of platforms both on & off
line both with & without our knowledge nor approval to note nothing sent
over the Internet anymore is ever private nor should be presumed to be so.
If it is that much of a secret, say nothing. If you must? Take a lesson
from our military- hand write the note, chew then swallow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150104/ddce4a33/attachment.html>