[CCWG-ACCT] Message from ICANN Board re Designator Model

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

Jordan you ask what we think.... Well ... I am personally of the belief,
that we should as a Community, explore the Zuck / Del Bianco options that
were recently raised and mentioned in the correspondence from the ICANN
Chair of the Board...
On 6 Oct 2015 13:44, "Jordan Carter" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

> Steve, all
>
> In finalising the CCWG's proposal, the ICANN board is a stakeholder - an
> important one.
>
> It has a later role as a decision-maker, according to criteria that have
> already been established by Board resolution.
>
> A careful multi-stakeholder process over almost a year has analysed the
> community's requirements and come up with a model that can do it - based
> around membership.
>
> The Board has abused its role as a decision-maker in this process. In
> effect, it has sought to replace the open, public, deliberative proposal
> development process with its own definition of what the community requires,
> and its own solution that can deliver its evaluation of those requirements.
>
> In doing so, it has profoundly challenged the legitimacy of the
> multi-stakeholder model of decision-making that ICANN and its Board claim
> to uphold.
>
> Worse, as a matter of process, the Board has attempted to use its
> decisional role at the end of the Accountability to move the trajectory of
> debate away from what the community's requirements, fairly analysed dictate
> -- trying to force the group to "jump the tracks" and into a solution that
> is unlikely to be able to deliver on those requirements.
>
> It's an ugly display of force in what should be a rational and
> requirements-based conversation.
>
> I sincerely regret the Board's choice as a group to take that approach.
> The effect is to give fodder to all of those people, countries and groups
> who have long argued that the entire notion of multi-stakeholder Internet
> policymaking is a charade, behind which decisions are made simply and alone
> by "the people who matter".
>
> In terms of the CCWG's work, this email combined with your statement in
> Los Angeles reduce the chances of any consensus being able to emerge
> between what the Board has asked for and what the CCWG has developed.
>
>
> It leaves me very sad that the groups here (Board and CCWG) have arrived
> at this position. There is an apparent lack of listening and comprehension;
> few displays of empathy or willingness to see things from another point of
> view; and a consequent inability to really talk through and resolve the
> conflicting perspectives and aims here.
>
> I hoped the Board might make some overtures in that direction. I know I
> and other CCWG members have been trying to do. To get this sort of response
> indicates that that attempt serves no further purpose.
>
>
> What are others' views about how we proceed from here? I confess myself
> mystified.
>
> Look forward to speaking with you all in a few hours.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jordan
>
>
> On 6 October 2015 at 15:21, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker at icann.org> wrote:
>
>> CCWG,
>>
>> We appreciate the continued work that the CCWG is doing to consider the
>> public comments received on its second draft report.  Following the Los
>> Angeles F2F we have heard suggestions that a Designator model relying on
>> California statutes may be a replacement for the Sole Member model that was
>> in the second draft report.
>>
>> To be clear, the concerns that the Board raised on the Sole Member model
>> still apply to a Designator model.  The Designator model still introduces a
>> new legal structure with powers that are intrinsically beyond the structure
>> we have been using.  We understand that many believe it is possible to
>> constrain these powers in order to provide established protections,
>> accountability and thresholds: This is unproven territory and will require
>> more detail and time to understand and test the impact on our bedrock
>> multistakeholder balance.
>>
>> Further, it is unclear that this would represent the full
>> multistakeholder community because we do not know yet which SO/ACs will
>> join now or later.  Moreover, the same community accountability issues
>> present in the Sole Member are present in the Designator model.
>>
>> Steve del Bianco’s constructive suggestion over the weekend that the
>> Board could commit to a future governance structure review triggered by key
>> factors seems like a good path forward.  This can be enshrined in a new
>> fundamental bylaw that would require the holding of a future governance
>> structure review if SOs and ACs agree to kick off that review.
>>
>> We are all in complete agreement on the objective of enforcement of the
>> five community powers, with new/stronger mechanisms for board removal
>> if/when necessary.  Let’s focus on finalizing the details on these
>> consensus elements to enable implementation and a successful transition.
>>
>> Steve Crocker
>> for the ICANN Board of Directors
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at 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
> 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://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/20151006/087ab362/attachment.html>