[CCWG-ACCT] Special Community Leaders CAll - 6 October - Shared Materials

Thu Oct 8 12:21:10 UTC 2015

Divide by zero error.

On 08/10/15 13:13, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> Actually Nigel is right if it were 1+(-1) but in this case it can be  +1 x
> -1 which would always result to -1, I guess this should say something about
> the things we insert as mechanisms in this process; Make them complex (by
> changing its structure as is the case with bracket) and you will be amazed
> at the zero result. I prefer outcomes that are more predictable ;-)
>
> Cheers!
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:
>
>> I believe that mathematically speaking it adds up to -2. But then, what
>> would I know…I’m a recovering lawyer...
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On 8 Oct 2015, at 22:46 , Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:
>>
>> Doesn't that add up to 0?
>>
>>
>> On 08/10/15 11:19, Chris Disspain wrote:
>>
>> +1 to Roelof’s -1 :-)
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On 8 Oct 2015, at 19:47 , Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl> wrote:
>>
>> -1
>>
>> "the Board continues to go their own way
>> and stands in opposition to the community, we may not.    We need to
>> complete our work quickly with the fixes and then, as always, it is in
>> the Board's hands.  We have already lost several weeks because of the
>> spanner thrown when the Board produced their own proposal for
>> accountability. Just imagine where we would have been had the Board met
>> with us in LA with the attitude of working with the community instead of
>> against it.²
>>
>>
>> Counterproductive, in my opinion. Let¹s not suggest that the community is
>> in full agreement on the 2nd draft CCWG proposal, it is not.
>> Let¹s not suggest that the board is (nothing but) working against us, it
>> is not. We have agreement on the most important ingredients of the
>> proposal: specific powers for the community that can be enforced. We do
>> not have agreement on the mechanism to implement these. If we want that,
>> and I assume we do, both the board AND we have to change the way we
>> communicate and collaborate with each other.
>> Let¹s stay focussed on our mission, our goals and bridging the gap.
>> Enlarging it, will only help us fail.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Roelof Meijer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07-10-15 13:29, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
>> behalf of Avri Doria" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
>> behalf of avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> My reading of this is that if the Board is willing to accept the CCWG
>> proposals, which do reflect broad agreement, then we can make the
>> schedule.  If, on the the hand the Board continues to go their own way
>> and stands in opposition to the community, we may not.    We need to
>> complete our work quickly with the fixes and then, as always, it is in
>> the Board's hands.  We have already lost several weeks because of the
>> spanner thrown when the Board produced their own proposal for
>> accountability. Just imagine where we would have been had the Board met
>> with us in LA with the attitude of working with the community instead of
>> against it.
>>
>> I also think the doomsday scenarios are just a bit exaggerated.  We have
>> to stop scaring people with the G77 boogeyman.  And if the Protocols and
>> Number no longer trust ICANN, they will go their own way, whether it is
>> before transition or after, they have been crystal clear about those
>> intentions - it could happen anytime - why would the status quo of
>> continuing NTIA oversight convince them to leave ICANN? I do agree with
>> point V, if the Board continues to overrule the multistakeholder
>> process, it will become ever harder to convince people that this is a
>> workable modality for decision making.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 07-Oct-15 06:11, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-10-07 08:03, Mathieu Weill wrote:
>>
>> You will find attached the set of slides that was prepared by ICANN
>> and presented during the calls.
>>
>>
>> Wow, that slide on page 4 ("5 risks we face if the IANA Stewardship
>> Transition is Delayed/Fails") is a contentious parade of horribles if
>> ever I saw one!
>>
>> Setting that aside as merely disputatious, page 5 ("4 Remaining
>> Questions
>> on  The Road to Transition") is interesting.
>>
>> Firstly, the framing - that these are indeed the questions, and the only
>> gating questions, is certainly open to debate. But the answers don't
>> currently point to swift completion either.
>>
>> Here is my assessment.
>>
>> Q. "Do we have broad agreement on ALL the elements to address the CWG
>> Dependencies?"
>>
>> A. Within CCWG, using its proposal as the base: yes.
>> Between CCWG and Board, on the Board's counter-proposal: Not really.
>> There is no agreement as to whether the power to challenge the Budget
>> and Strategic Plan would be effectively available in the absence of
>> the SMM,
>> which the Board opposes. Our Counsel raises key concerns about this in
>> their recent memo comparing the Board proposal with our own.
>> And this power (or some variant) is noted as being a CWG requirement.
>>
>> Q. "Do we have broad agreement on the requirements and enforceability of
>> the five community powers?"
>>
>> A. Within CCWG, on its proposal: yes.
>> Between CCWG and Board, on the Board's counter-proposal: No. The
>> enforceability
>> of the five community powers in the absence of the SMM is a
>> significant area
>> of disagreement; there is no agreement within CCWG that the MEM is an
>> effective
>> alternative means to ensure enforceability.
>>
>> Q "Are the above areas of broad agreement consistent with NTIA
>> criteria and do
>> they meet the requirements for a safe/secure transition of U.S.
>> Government stewardship?"
>>
>> A. Within CCWG, we are content that our proposal would achieve this.
>> Between CCWG and Board, neither party accepts that the other's
>> proposal would
>> achieve satisfy the NTIA criteria. For the Board, the CCWG's reforms
>> pose
>> a risk to "safe and secure" stability of ICANN; for CCWG, the removal
>> of NTIA
>> oversight without its replacement by accountability mechanisms that it
>> agrees
>> to be effective and enforceable poses just as great a risk, and of
>> like kind. Moreover,
>> the Board's counter-proposal omits or reduces* safeguards the CCWG
>> thought
>> necessary to guarantee the openness of the Internet, another NTIA
>> requirement.
>>
>>    [* Discussion on this hasn't yet concluded; the Board might argue
>> that it
>>       offers adequate alternatives, and while some in CCWG may have
>> arrived at
>>       a firm conclusion to the contrary; others may be yet to make up
>> their minds.
>>       What cannot be contested is that the CCWG as a whole has not has
>> not yet
>>       accepted the adequacy of the Board's counter in relation to this
>> particular
>>       NTIA criterion, which stands independently and complementary to
>> the "safe and
>>       secure" criterion. See also below for comments on the need for a
>> systematic
>>       re-evaluation.]
>>
>> Q. Do we have broad agreement on an assured process to continuously
>> improve ICANN¹s
>> accountability and evolve its governance structure?
>>
>> A. Not really. CCWG has tasked itself with addressing in WS1 only
>> those items that
>> must be addressed before transition, and has chosen to leave
>> everything else to a
>> WS2 that it trusts will be continued. The Board seemingly proposes
>> closing down CCWG upon
>> transition, ending WS2 as a distinct programme and leaving those
>> issues to be
>> addressed by disparate parts of the community (although it is not
>> clear that the
>> SOs even have the capacity to initiate proposals on all WS2 issues).
>> So there is
>> no agreement between CCWG and the Board on the process for continuous
>> improvement
>> either.
>>
>> Once again, an overview from ICANN that seems intended to force the
>> pace actually
>> shows how much still remains to be agreed. Perhaps this will persuade
>> the Board to
>> rethink its opposition to the considered view of the community, worked
>> on by this
>> group so intensively for almost a year.
>>
>> One thing the slidedeck does usefully point up is that before agreeing
>> to abandon its
>> proposal in favour of the Board's counter, even if it were minded to
>> do so, CCWG
>> would need to do a full re-evaluation against the NTIA criteria and
>> stress tests
>> to determine its adequacy. Our assessment of how our proposal
>> satisfies the stress tests
>> is only an assessment of OUR proposal, not of the Board's counter.
>>
>> Accordingly, if the Board remains unwilling to accept the
>> cross-community proposal,
>> this slidedeck suggests to me that expectations management, rather
>> than "racing
>> to the finish line", is the more prudent course of action.
>>
>> That further demonstrates how unhelpful and counter-productive is the
>> scaremongering
>> on page 4.
>>
>> Malcolm.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> 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://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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>
>