[CCWG-ACCT] A modest proposal to start the week

Mon Jun 1 11:14:58 UTC 2015

This response represents a clear violation of international law and should be subject to binding mediation. ;)

Edward, thanks for your thoughtful reply and generally I’m in agreement with the sentiment. I will submit, in less ranting form, that the way in which these particular conversations have taken place has been of zero probative value. First, they come up as vague passive aggressive references which draw vague overarching defensiveness which in turn inspire even more vague and ominous sounding statements lobbed over the transom. It’s the conversation that no one really wants to have but they accidentally lose their balance and end up there. You mention it hardened your belief in the importance of enforceability. I would argue there is objectively no accountability without enforceability so we don’t need a vague emotional discussion to get there. It’s simply a fact.

If the board or community wants to schedule a “grievance” session in BA to open a discussion about why there is mistrust back and forth, they are welcome to do so, and I would be happy to participate. I have mentioned many times at ICANN meetings that the community is responsible for putting too many substantive decisions in front of the board due to their failure to compromise and reach consensus. That said, true accountability cannot be built on trust so it’s existence or lack thereof is truly irrelevant. Dr. Lisse has argued that if there was better trust, this discussion would not be necessary and I wholeheartedly disagree.

So I stand by my outburst but otherwise join you in slogging through the chaff to find the wheat.
Jonathan

From: Edward Morris
Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 6:24 AM
To: Pär Brumark
Cc: Jonathan Zuck, Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A modest proposal to start the week

Although I certainly understand Jonathan's frustration with the direction of some of the comments on this list, I reject his call for individuals to self censor comments that are done respectfully and that they honestly believe further the discussion of accountability. I participate in this project in good faith and I presume others do as well. Although everyone is free to approach things as they wish,  I certainly will not follow Jonathan's approach and impugn ulterior motives ("flag"..."overt attempts"..."derail") to those who make posts in the topical area he delineates.

We all have different background and pet peeves. Jonathan's appears to be in the area of Board - Community history / mistrust. Some of these discussions have actually hardened my belief that we need the strong enforcement provisions provided by membership: if feelings are this strong less concrete enforcement mechanisms simply won't work. In that way these discussions have been valuable to me. My pet peeve are the many posts by those who don't understand basic legal principles, concepts or definitions, resulting in questions that are innane and conclusions that are inaccurate and harmful to our progress. Yet I would never ask people not to post such ill conceived ideas because every so often in the midst of the their garbage there is a gem I hadn't considered. That is truly valuable.

 I look forward to reading, perhaps slugging through might be a better description, the many ideas and opinions raised and expressed through this process wherever it may take us. It's a frustrating process but I certainly do not want to create a situation where folks are afraid or self conscious about posting something because it may irritate someone else. Please be respectful and honest in all posts and accept my thanks for volunteering your time to help create an effective, open, inclusive  and democratic internet governance regime.

Thanks for considering,

Ed

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Pär Brumark <brumark at telia.com<mailto:brumark at telia.com>> wrote:
Agree totally and +1 Jonathan!

Best Regards,

Pär Brumark

Jonathan Zuck skrev den 2015-06-01 03:08:
Folks,
I’m sure if we think about it for just a second, we can all agree that anyone’s recollections (whatever their tenure or status in the community) about the past intentions, motives and actions of the board, the community or some interest group, are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. The exercise in which we are engaged involves imaging the worst of these things and attempting to put structures in place to mitigate the consequences should the unfortunate occur. Let’s stop returning to this TOTALLY USELESS discussion of track records and good intentions and stay on task. If you believe the community can do no wrong and the board represents a machiavellian force of darkness that needs to be throttled, you’re in entitled to your opinion. Just take it someplace else. If you believe the community is just a rag tag collection of special interest groups with political motives and  that the board should receive a medal, I hereby validate your opinion as well. Now take it someplace else. This is decidedly NOT the conversation we are trying to have here. Every time it comes up, it sends us down a ridiculous path and ends badly.

So here’s my proposal:

  1.  If you are drafting a post to the list and it begins to sound like either an accusation or defense of the board, the community or some SO or AC, PLEASE STOP TYPING. Back way from the PC, go for a walk, come back and post something that is helpful to the discussion.
  2.  If you spot a post that slips through that reads like either an accusation or defense of the board, the community or some SO or AC, DON’T TAKE THE BAIT. Count to 10, call your therapist, do whatever you must, but LET IT GO.

That is all. Henceforth, I will flag all such posts as overt attempts to derail this process of developing an effective accountability framework for ICANN because there can be no other explanation for their continued existence.  If you find yourself writing something like “in all my years,” “it’s been my experience,” or “I don’t recall” stop typing immediately and think about the useless debate you are about to start or continue.

This is NOT about the current board, the current community or anyone’s intentions or motives. It’s about a post IANA contract world in which ICANN needs effective accountability to the community. That’s it. It’s not personal. Let’s get back to work. Thank you.

Jonathan

Jonathan Zuck
President
202-331-2130<tel:202-331-2130> X 101 | jzuck at actonline.org<mailto:jzuck at actonline.org> | Skype: jvzuck

ACT | The App Association
[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/twitter.png]<https://twitter.com/actonline>

[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/fb.png]<https://www.facebook.com/actonline.org>

[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/actonline.png]<http://actonline.org/>

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150601/466f90b1/attachment.html>