[CCWG-ACCT] Is it reasonable to avoid new mechanisms?

Mon Oct 5 15:28:49 UTC 2015

[image: Images intégrées 9]Dear Paul
Thank you very much for your message
I was really delighted to receive such a nice words from you
Sorry MY message was prematurely sent before I edit that.
I fact I copied some part of your message to use it in my reply
However, it was sent before I finish.
PLS READ THAT MESSAGE void I repeat the reply as follows
 Dear Paul

Thank you very much for your message and your analysis,

I wish if I could continue to support SMM. But we need to avoid that few
SOs which would probably participate in the voting with threshold of 2/3 (
say 3 SOs with 15 votes ,the 2/3 of which become 10 would decide  rejecting
standard Bylaws changes .This means out of 29 weighting vote 10 reject the
changes which may be beneficial for 4 ACs .Is that the way you and your
overwhelming majority wants to capture the entire commune by 10 votes out
of 29 VOTES ???
it is not the "few" who have  DIFFICULTIES  with MSM ,as I do not your
counting criteria.  There is no such overwhelming majority supporting the
SMM.  The whole accountability method was the results of many back and
forth options and just few partisans pushed for SMM.

I did not severely objected to it until the issue was discussed at ICANN 53
that two ACs announced that they will not participate, another AC is also
likely in a position not to participate .then remains 3 or 4 out of 7
communities .

Then ICANN clearly opposed to SMM and ,in particular, its inherent voting
concept. Very probably NTIA does not wish that GAC attend 7 participate at
any voting as they have mentioned that they insist that GAC must remain as
an Advisory Community. Then your SMM makes changes which touches the very
interests of ACs and other who do not participate at voting and still you
wish to impose the decision made by 10 vote to other communities with
almost double number of votes weighting criteria .The interests of a
minority prevails against the interest of majority. That is not acceptable
.There are several question and NOT some questions about the structure of
the SMM,, its accountability, And Fiduciary to the entire community which
are much more larger than those 7 SOs  and ACs in the beloved SMM.

The 300 (!) messages on the chat and the transcripts from Paris, LA and the
Board calls suggests that the if it were put to a straight vote the SMM
would NOT win since there are much more than that who have not decided or
they are abstention .You may know that if the number of abstention is more
than those voted in favour or against the voting is in valid.

Either we want to dominate others or we want to talk and negotiate and
collaborate with others.

There is neither superiority nor domination. The only criteria is
democracy, mutual respect, working together with a view to reach consensus.

It was good to hear from you and learn from you .

We continue to learn from each other’s if we listen to each other’s

Cheers my dead Paul, I remain

Kavouss

2015-10-05 16:54 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

> Dear Paul,
> Thank you very much for your message and your abnalysis,
> I wish if I could continue to support SMM. But we need to avoid the few
> SSs which would probably participate the voting with 273obUT WE NEED TO BE
> CAREFUL OF THE CONSEQUENCE THAT FEW sOs h respect, it is not the "few" who
> have agreed.  As I read the history, the overwhelming majority support the
> SMM.  There are some questions (per your "b" bullet below) about the
> precise structure of the SMM, but a mere review of the last 300 (!)
> messages on the chat and the transcripts from Paris, LA and the Board calls
> suggests that the if it were put to a straight vote the SMM would win by a
> large margin.
>
> This is not an argument that the SMM must win.  But it is a counter to the
> argument that the dissent of a small, but vocal, minority should be able to
> exercise a heckler's veto over a proposal that the majority of the
> community supports.  If the multi-stakeholder model means anything, it
> means compromise in t he first instance, and respect for everyone's views.
> But it does not mean regression to the least common denominator or that the
> community's broader needs must yield to an intransigent minority.
>
> Paul
>
> 2015-10-05 16:44 GMT+02:00 Paul Rosenzweig <
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>:
>
>> With respect, it is not the "few" who have agreed.  As I read the
>> history, the overwhelming majority support the SMM.  There are some
>> questions (per your "b" bullet below) about the precise structure of the
>> SMM, but a mere review of the last 300 (!) messages on the chat and the
>> transcripts from Paris, LA and the Board calls suggests that the if it were
>> put to a straight vote the SMM would win by a large margin.
>>
>> This is not an argument that the SMM must win.  But it is a counter to
>> the argument that the dissent of a small, but vocal, minority should be
>> able to exercise a heckler's veto over a proposal that the majority of the
>> community supports.  If the multi-stakeholder model means anything, it
>> means compromise in t he first instance, and respect for everyone's views.
>> But it does not mean regression to the least common denominator or that the
>> community's broader needs must yield to an intransigent minority.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> --
>> Sent from myMail app for Android
>> Monday, 05 October 2015, 10:31AM -04:00 from Kavouss Arasteh <
>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> Jordan,
>> We should not pusjh to a particular model SMM  while we have disagreement
>> a) from the Board and b) from people among CCWG ,in partzicular, if the
>> voting arrangements are maintained and if most of the ACs refrain to pop
>> in/ or opt for voting and c) indication from others that with such voting
>> by the ACs the balance between the private sectors and others, on the one
>> hand, and governments on the other hand is c ompromised,
>> We need to listen to each others and not to few that have already agreed
>> to SMM.
>> Pls kindly understand that there is diverghence of views .$
>> Let us find out a consensus along the line that was proposed by Stev and
>> amended by me
>> Tks
>> Kavouss
>>
>> 2015-10-05 16:25 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-10-05 15:38 GMT+02:00 Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3amshears@cdt.org>>:
>>
>> + 1 also
>>
>> On 05/10/2015 13:54, James M. Bladel wrote:
>>
>> +1.
>>
>> Any claims that we must abbreviate accountability reforms in order to fit
>> the IANA transition timeline has those two priorities reversed.
>>
>> Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.
>>
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 19:44, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ajordan@internetnz.net.nz>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Avri for this nice statement of one of the key dilemmas facing
>> this group.
>>
>> The divergence between:
>>
>> - the transition can't happen until accountability is sustainable, and so
>> that requires the member model as a foundation
>>
>> and
>>
>> - the transition can't happen if there is a significant change such as
>> that to a member model, and so that requires ruling out the member model
>>
>>
>> is quite stark.
>>
>> FWIW my instincts are in line with Avri's. If ICANN's current level of
>> accountability was acceptable, the community would not have demanded an
>> accountability process alongside the transition process, and NTIA would not
>> have agreed the two had to be intertwined and interrelated.
>>
>>
>> cheers
>> Jordan
>>
>>
>> On 1 October 2015 at 10:38, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aavri@acm.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The  Board's critique rests on a notion that the introduction of
>> anything new in the ICANN system will be a destabilizing factor and most
>> be avoided.
>>
>> This ignores the fact that by removing the NTIA backstop we destabilize
>> the current system. It might have been possible to find a new balance
>> (not that the old worked that well given the amount of discontent that
>> existed prior to the CCWG process) by tweaking the system.  The early
>> work of the CCWG, however, showed that this was not enough.  So we
>> decided to bring back a notion that existed in the early ICANN design,
>> the idea of membership.  Membership has always been part of the kit that
>> was available to ICANN in the multistakeholder model.  An initial
>> experiment met with some issues and instead of fixing that then, they
>> threw the notion away without exploring possible tweaks to the system.
>> As a result we are living in ICANN 2.0, a system that was  imposed in a
>> top down manner and one that was never fully accepted by those at the
>> bottom.
>>
>> Now, albeit in a very different configuration, the CCWG is proposing to
>> establish a community consensus based idea of membership. I believe that
>> this should be given a fair analysis before rejecting it.  It is also
>> important to remember that the NTIA requirements were not a prohibition
>> of new mechanisms or structures, but rather evidence that these
>> structure did not increase the current risk, or fact, of capture and
>> that they could be held to account.
>>
>> The Board criticism is important to look at for arguments that show the
>> areas in which the CCWG plan either does not explain its protections
>> against capture and its accountability checks and balances or may have
>> gaps in these areas. If we cannot explain what we propose, or cannot
>> close the gaps, then it becomes time to consider variations on the model
>> or another model altogether. In my opinion, we are not there.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jordan Carter
>>
>> Chief Executive
>> *InternetNZ*
>>
>> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
>> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ajordan@internetnz.net.nz>
>> Skype: jordancarter
>> Web: www.internetnz.nz
>>
>> *A better world through a better Internet *
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Matthew Shears
>> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology mshears at cdt.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3amshears@cdt.org>+ 44 771 247 2987
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@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/20151005/2f9214d9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 43 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151005/2f9214d9/image.gif>