[CCWG-ACCT] Blog: Working Together Through The Last Mile

Robin Gross robin at ipjustice.org
Sat Sep 5 15:49:18 UTC 2015 

One of the main reasons we got to where we are (had to create a CCWG Accountability at all), is because for too long ICANN the corporation has operated according to the priorities of the legal dept, and especially Jones Day, with the board-staff simply taking direction from its lawyers (in-house and out-house), putting the corporation first and the community last.  

It is precisely this kind of "operationalism" that the community seeks to curb in the CCWG report, so for the board to fail to see this, and come at us with the Jones Day wish list for retaining control is rather astonishing.  

It is time the board wrapped its mind around the fact that times *are* changing at ICANN, and efforts to stop that reform will not help the board achieve the kind of legitimacy to govern that ICANN so desperately needs.

Robin


On Sep 5, 2015, at 6:46 AM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:

> I agree with Avri completely.  And I, for one, do not want the transition
> badly enough that I would capitulate to the Board's effort to completely
> distort the proposed process.  Candidly, I find it challenging to respond to
> this blog post as it seems to so manifestly confuse ends and means and to
> treat the question of means as trivial.
> 
> I am delighted that the Board professes to share our end goal of
> accountability.  But characterizing its disagreement over how to achieve
> that as merely technical is, with due respect, sophistry.  Everyone supports
> world peace - but there is a world of difference between those who think it
> may be achieved through military deterrence and those who think it should be
> accomplished through diplomacy.  
> 
> The difference in proposed means could not be more stark.  The CCWG views
> the Single Member as a way of the community exercising direct control over
> the Board, with the IRP (and courts in California) as rare, infrequent
> backups to that relationship and with the community as the entity that has
> pre-eminence.  I support that vision.
> 
> The Board's proposal sees the IRP and courts as the resolvers of dispute
> with the Board retaining its preeminent position and the community reduced
> to an (as yet ill defined) role as complainant.  Anyone who has ever done
> litigation knows that being the supplicant makes you subservient - and that
> is the position the Board's proposal would put the community in.   The
> difference is not quite as stark as the one between realpolitik and
> diplomacy, but it is both substantial and transformative.  Any effort to
> paint agreement on the "ends" as "really near complete agreement" on the
> whole of the transition is misleading.  
> 
> I understand why the Board does not want to yield power.  That is precisely
> why it must.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] 
> Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2015 2:17 AM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog: Working Together Through The Last Mile
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The effort to spin the replacement recommendation as just operationalization
> is impressive.
> 
> I do not understand the references to capture unless they mean capture by
> the community from the Board.  I suppose that from their perspective the
> CMSM would appear to be capture in and of itself, as it gives the community
> a share of the power they now hold for themselves.  I think any discussion
> of capture that goes beyond FUD, needs an analysis who who has captured the
> current ICANN model.  Capture is always an interesting topic because it
> often means: "who is trying to share my power now?"  I am all for opening up
> the discussion to the power anlaysi, current, potential and likely.
> 
> Additionally, I do not understand this statement:
> 
>> where the current proposal still warrants much detail that may not be 
>> achievable
> 
> While it is true that is needs a bit more detail, though perhaps much less
> that is being claimed - until it is time for implementaton, it is not as bad
> as all of that.  What do they mean that an adequate level of detail is not
> achievable? Though I have learned that if someone does not wish to accept a
> proposal, it can never have enough detail. 
> 
> I think we are facing a critical moment in this transition where we, as a
> community, will have to decide whether we want the transition so badly that
> we are willing to surrender and let the Board have complete control without
> any possibility of ever being subject to oversight ever again. 
> The transition is the time to switch from NTIA oversight to community
> oversight.  If this is not possible, then perhaps the transition should not
> go forward.
> 
> We need to consider this turn of affairs quite carefully.
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> On 04-Sep-15 15:53, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
>> Original
>> link: 
>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile
>> 
>> 
>>  Working Together Through The Last Mile
>> 
>> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mil
>> e#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-
>> mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-la
>> st-mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the
>> -last-mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-
>> the-last-mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-throu
>> gh-the-last-mile#>
>> 
>> I'd like to thank everyone who has participated in both the CCWG 
>> briefing to the ICANN Board 
>> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56132981>,
>> and the CCWG and ICANN board dialogue
>> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56133316>.
>> All of our dialogues over the past months have been illuminating, 
>> challenging and in my opinion, an important and true testament to the 
>> multistakeholder model as we work toward the IANA Stewardship Transition.
>> 
>> */We support the important improvements for ICANN's accountability 
>> contained in the CCWG-Accountability's 2nd Draft Proposal. We endorse 
>> the goal of enforceability of these accountability mechanisms, and we 
>> believe that it is possible to implement the key elements of the 
>> proposal. We want to work together to achieve the elements of the 
>> proposal within the community's timeline while meeting the NTIA 
>> requirements./*
>> 
>> As we enter the final days of the Public Comment period, the Board 
>> wants to be completely clear on our position. We are in agreement on 
>> key concepts set forward in the CCWG's proposal, for example:
>> 
>>  * Fundamental bylaws.
>>  * Specific requirements for empowering the community into the bylaws
>>    adoption process.
>>  * IRP enhancements.
>>  * Board and director removal.
>>  * ICANN's mission and core values.
>>  * Strengthening requirements for empowering the community in the
>>    budget, operational and strategic planning process.
>>  * The incorporation of the Affirmation of Commitments Reviews
>>    intoICANN bylaws.
>>  * Community ability to enforce the accountability mechanisms in the
>>    bylaws.
>> 
>> We have suggestions on how these could be operationalized. With 
>> regards to the mechanisms for community enforceability, where the 
>> current proposal still warrants much detail that may not be achievable 
>> we have a suggestion on how to deliver on it in a stable way, as 
>> increased enforceability must not open up questions of, for example, 
>> capture or diminishing of checks and balances.
>> 
>> Let's work together on operationalizing the above principles on which 
>> we agree. Once again, we are committed to providing more detail on how 
>> these ideas can be operationalized in a way that they can be 
>> implemented within the community identified time frame for the 
>> transition, as well as have sufficient tested grounds to not result in 
>> unintended consequences.
>> 
>> During last night's discussion we shared this feedback. It was a lot 
>> of information to digest in a call (notes around opening remarks 
>> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-Sep
>> tember/005160.html>, notes around 10 points 
>> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-Sep
>> tember/005161.html>), and we appreciate everyone giving our advice 
>> consideration. We are committed to submitting our comments into the 
>> Public Comment process in the next few days, and we look forward to 
>> the working with the community on further details.
>> 
>> It is critical that we work together to build enhanced accountability 
>> forICANN and continue to refine and flesh out details of the 
>> impressive work already done by the community and complete the 
>> IANAStewardship Transition.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
> 
> ---
> 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
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150905/ead3b8c9/signature.asc>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list