[CCWG-ACCT] Blog: Working Together Through The Last Mile
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Wed Sep 9 04:01:58 UTC 2015
>
> And here is a final observation. To put it – like Greg – as a conflict as
> “Board on Top” vs. “Community on Top” is misleading.
Wolfgang,
You have misstated, and thus significantly mischaracterized, my point.
Though I am sure it was inadvertent, it nonetheless obscures the point I
was making.
I did not say there was a "conflict" between "Board on Top" and "Community
on Top." What I said was:
"Board on Top" survives, and "Member on Top" (as membership organizations
> are constituted under US nonprofit law) is eliminated.
These characterizations are rooted in the basic difference, under US
non-profit corporations law, between a membership non-profit corporation
and a non-profit corporation without members. This is a generic
distinction -- not specific to ICANN. It is not a "conflict" -- but it is a
fundamental difference between a "membership model" and a "non-membership
model."
In a membership corporation, the membership (whether a single member or
many members) outranks the Board in certain limited but significant ways.
In a non-membership corporation, the Board has ultimate authority. While
somewhat simplified, it is neither "wrong" nor "misleading" to characterize
the distinction between these two models as "Board on Top" and "Member on
Top." Indeed, it's really quite accurate.
One thing I was NOT saying was that there was a dichotomy between the Board
and the Community. It's quite fascinating that you would have chosen to
re-cast it in that fashion. While I'm a lawyer, I'm no psychiatrist
(though my father was, and my wife, sister and brother-in-law are all
psychologists), so I'll leave it to others to analyze that.
Greg
Greg
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> And I think it has more to do with establishing checks and balances that
> take into account the loss of the NTIA backstop/oversight.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 08-Sep-15 13:48, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
> > Exactly
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/8/15, 1:31 PM, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> on behalf of James M. Bladel" <
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
> jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Disagree, Nigel. It¹s not about the past, but rather an effort to
> >> future-proof the organization against individuals & groups we haven¹t
> >> event met yet.
> >>
> >> Thanks‹
> >>
> >> J.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/8/15, 11:59 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
> >> behalf of Nigel Roberts" <
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> >> on behalf of nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Roelof
> >>>
> >>> You are a smart guy. You are open and ready to trust. These are
> >>> admirable qualities.
> >>>
> >>> But ICANN, as a collective entity, to those of us who were there at its
> >>> beginnings needs to continually prove it is worthy of trust.
> >>>
> >>> Because back then, it wasn't.
> >>>
> >>> And some of us remember.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 08/09/15 17:53, Roelof Meijer wrote:
> >>>> All,
> >>>>
> >>>> Below I pasted some quotes from this thread. And I cannot but wonder.
> >>>> What are we getting so wound up about? Did we really expected a ³yes,
> >>>> perfect, let¹s implement this straight away²?
> >>>> But what makes me wonder most is why, for heaven¹s sake, do we see the
> >>>> board as a unity of ill-doers?
> >>>>
> >>>> The board members that have participated in our work are individuals
> >>>> that I hold in high esteem. Quite a few of them tutored me when I
> >>>> entered this miraculous world of ICANN quite a few years ago.
> >>>> They gave me different angles and insights, pointed out different
> >>>> possible views and were open to discussion, disagreement and new
> ideas.
> >>>> And were tirelessly working to improve the way we work for the benefit
> >>>> of the global internet community. And most of them did not change a
> bit
> >>>> after they decided to help us all forward even more, make a personal
> >>>> sacrifice and join ICANN's board.
> >>>>
> >>>> In my opinion, there¹s no collective single opinion in any wrong
> >>>> direction in this board. There is however, a collective intellect and
> a
> >>>> level of individual integrity and selfishness that one does not easily
> >>>> find in executive structures. They deserve our respect. Which, no,
> does
> >>>> not mean that we cannot have different opinions.
> >>>>
> >>>> When Steve Crocker writes:
> >>>>
> >>>> /"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.²/
> >>>>
> >>>> he in my opinion sends a very clear message that we should happily
> >>>> receive, as he commits the board. Let¹s await the promised details of
> >>>> their ideas and keep engaged.
> >>>> Why should we want to send messages like the following, what do we
> hope
> >>>> to achieve? Frustrate the process to a halt?
> >>>> Read the quotes below, and note the interpretations of what was read
> or
> >>>> heard: as in ³while you say, Š. I seeŠ², ³when you say, Š you mean.."
> >>>>
> >>>> /"While you say the the Single member is just a implementation issue,
> I
> >>>> //see you attacking one of the fundamental principles, in fact the
> >>>> //keystone of the CCWG proposal."/
> >>>>
> >>>> //
> >>>>
> >>>> /"I see in the Board's response a fear of the community and of the all
> >>>> the //bad things we might do if we were not kept tightly in check"/
> >>>>
> >>>> //
> >>>>
> >>>> /"It should not come as a surprise that ICANN's current structure does
> >>>> not want changes. Nothing is more natural in a change process than for
> >>>> those who see some loss of control or authority to oppose it. It is a
> >>>> very natural human reaction."/
> >>>>
> >>>> //
> >>>>
> >>>> /"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" /
> >>>>
> >>>> //
> >>>>
> >>>> /"When you say you agree to a thing in principle you mean that you
> have
> >>>> not the slightest intention of carrying it out in practice."/
> >>>>
> >>>> //
> >>>>
> >>>> /"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."/
> >>>>
> >>>> //
> >>>>
> >>>> /"I understand why the Board does not want to yield power. That is
> >>>> precisely //why it must."/
> >>>>
> >>>> //
> >>>>
> >>>> /"The effort to spin the replacement recommendation as just
> >>>> //operationalization is impressive."/
> >>>>
> >>>> //
> >>>>
> >>>> /"not surrender and let the Board have complete control //without any
> >>>> possibility of ever being subject to oversight ever again"/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Let¹s all sit back a bit and reflect. On ourselvesŠ
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> Roelof Meijer
> >>>>
> >>>> SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE
> >>>> NETHERLANDS
> >>>> T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05
> >>>> roelof.meijer at sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer at sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl
> >>>> <http://www.sidn.nl/>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 07-09-15 20:14, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf
> of
> >>>> Avri Doria" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf
> of
> >>>> avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> First, my perceptions are not colored by Trust. I trust the Board
> >>>> and I
> >>>> trust that you are all well intentioned people who are doing the
> >>>> best
> >>>> you can for ICANN. I believe that none of you has an ulterior
> >>>> motive of
> >>>> personal advantage for the positions you take. I go so far in my
> >>>> trust
> >>>> of the Board members as being among those who do not believe that
> a
> >>>> Board member would ever take a position just because it would help
> >>>> him
> >>>> get elected and in the future would never believe that a Board
> >>>> member
> >>>> would change her position due to a concern with being removed from
> >>>> the
> >>>> Board. I am sure that each and every Board member would resign
> >>> >from the
> >>>> Board if they believed their effect were deleterious on ICANN and
> >>>> the
> >>>> Internet.
> >>>>
> >>>> My issue has to with with different perspectives. Perspective
> from
> >>>> the
> >>>> Board that holds all the power, and from the community that wishes
> >>>> to
> >>>> become empowered, at leas to a degree.
> >>>>
> >>>> While you say the the Single member is just a implementation
> issue,
> >>>> I
> >>>> see you attacking one of the fundamental principles, in fact the
> >>>> keystone of the CCWG proposal.
> >>>>
> >>>> I see in the Board's response a fear of the community and of the
> >>>> all the
> >>>> bad things we might do if we were not kept tightly in check. I
> >>>> think
> >>>> this is problematic and may be a barrier to finding a solution to
> >>>> the
> >>>> current impasse.
> >>>>
> >>>> Some inset comments below.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 07-Sep-15 04:22, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Avri,
> >>>>
> >>>> it is not easy for me to disagree with you. In most of the
> areas
> >>>> where we work together we have consensus or rough
> >>>> consensus. But here we have one of this seldom cases of
> >>>> disagreement. I recognize your statement but I am asking
> myself
> >>>> whether it is grounded on facts or on mistrust?
> >>>>
> >>>> What are the facts? For nearly all CCWG building blocks we
> have
> >>>> an agreement:
> >>>> €Community empowerment (Agreeement)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I do not see the Board as agreeing with the basic proposal. Maybe
> >>>> it is
> >>>> a matter of degree. The Board wishes to empower the community to a
> >>>> lower
> >>>> extent than the community considers empowerment. As explained by
> >>>> other,
> >>>> you want to give the community more appeal mechanisms, whereas on
> >>>> some
> >>>> fundamental issues the community requires decision making
> >>>> empowerment.
> >>>> The concepts are so far apart, it cannot be called 'agreement' in
> >>>> any
> >>>> straightforward definition of the term..
> >>>>
> >>>> €Removal of the Board (Agreement with some minor
> specifications)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sort of ok. I think there is a bit of very unflattering conjecture
> >>>> on
> >>>> the Board's part of a capricious and vengeful community. Why do
> you
> >>>> fear us so?
> >>>>
> >>>> €Fundamental Bylaws (Agreement)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Not really, the CCWG proposal required that the Community have a
> >>>> direct
> >>>> say on changes to fundamental bylaws and articles of
> incorporation.
> >>>> Raising the Board's threshold and consultations do not match the
> >>>> requirements at all. The are qualitatively different proposals.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> €Operational Plan (Agreement)
> >>>> €Budget (Agreement with some minor clarifictions)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> How minor are those clarifications? My impression in the meeting
> >>>> was
> >>>> that they, like many of the other 'minor' issues where actually
> >>>> based on
> >>>> fundamental disagreements.
> >>>>
> >>>> €Enforceability (Agreement)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I think you make a mistake about this. The Board seems to assume
> >>>> that
> >>>> we want to run off to court every time we are thwarted. Nothing
> >>>> could
> >>>> be further from the truth. The CCWG plan was designed to make
> >>>> going to
> >>>> court the end of a very long chain of other options that should
> not
> >>>> be
> >>>> necessary. The Board seems to offer a fast path to court. The
> CCWG
> >>>> plan
> >>>> balances the empowerment of the community with the empowerment of
> >>>> the
> >>>> Board nd strengthened redress mechanisms. It creates a new
> >>>> participant
> >>>> in the checks and balances.
> >>>>
> >>>> €IRP (Agreement)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Without allowing for binding decisions, it can't be called
> >>>> agreement.
> >>>>
> >>>> €Ombudsman (Agreement)
> >>>>
> >>>> We have a disagreement with regard to the Sole Membership
> Model.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Which is the keystone of the proposal and the reason that the
> other
> >>>> parts of the solution would work.
> >>>>
> >>>> For me the remaining open issues can be solved by further
> >>>> intensification of the dialogue within the community including
> >>>> CCWG and Board members. We have enough legal advice from
> >>>> different perspectives. If needed, we could get a third legal
> >>>> advice. But at the end it is the community which has to make
> the
> >>>> decision.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The community makes the decision? I thought the situation here
> was
> >>>> that
> >>>> ultimately the Board would make the decision. Had the community
> >>>> been
> >>>> making the decision, this process would have been like the CWG
> >>>> process.
> >>>> Once we would have finished the last comment period we would have
> >>>> submitted out proposal and then we could have moded on to the
> >>>> implementation phase.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This is the last mile. It is very natural that in such a
> >>>> complicated transition in the final stage there are some
> >>>> remaining controversies. In my eyes, there are not 20 miles to
> >>>> go (as Becky has proposed). The main work is done. And it is
> >>>> good work, also thanks to the CCWG, to its co-chairs, to its
> >>>> members and to the input from the broader community. The whole
> >>>> process is a very encouraging example which shows how the
> >>>> multistakeholder approach works in practice. This is an
> >>>> important signal also towards the WSIS 10+ Review process in
> New
> >>>> York.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If the Board were closer to agreeing with the CCWG proposal, I
> >>>> would be
> >>>> able to agree. But given the explanations we have had of the MEM
> >>>> and
> >>>> the Board's other possible solutions, I just do not see this. To
> >>>> me,
> >>>> this looks like the morning of a multiday bike bike tour when a
> >>>> century*
> >>>> or two are left to the finish. But maybe it is more like a climb
> of
> >>>> Everest at the last stage - stage 4, but i have never tried that.
> >>>>
> >>>> (*century as in 100 km or miles - lets go with km, that is a
> little
> >>>> better)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The reason why I have problems with the sole membership model
> is
> >>>> simple: I am in favor of a new mechanism to strengthen the
> >>>> checks and balances in the ICANN system to keep the board (and
> >>>> the other ICANN bodies) accountable to the community. But in
> my
> >>>> eyes the proposed Sole Membership Model is untested, has a
> >>>> number of risks and is open for unintended side-effects.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Whereas I see this as a fundamental check and balance element that
> >>>> compensates for the removal of ICANN's only external oversight.
> An
> >>>> organization that removes formal external oversight needs a
> stronger
> >>>> notion of community oversight mechanisms. The AOC reviews are a
> >>>> good
> >>>> start, but we have seen that not only do the recommendations
> >>>> sometimes
> >>>> get perverted in implementation (for example bylaws changes that
> >>>> made
> >>>> the IRP less useful rather than more so, as had been recommended
> by
> >>>> ATRT1) or rather lackadaisically as we have seen with ATRT2
> >>>> recommendations that are green lighted for someday over the
> >>>> rainbow. As
> >>>> people pointed out to me frequently when I spoke of ATRT2
> >>>> recommendations, I mostly had to add: "but we are still waiting."
> >>>>
> >>>> You speak of untested models. The only model that has been tested
> >>>> is the
> >>>> current model without any changes. And we have seen that this is
> a
> >>>> model that does nothing to curb the creative and spending
> >>>> exuberance of
> >>>> the Board. It is a model that will not work without ultimate
> >>>> oversight
> >>>> somewhere. This we can see strong evidence for. As we become
> free
> >>>> from
> >>>> government's ultimate control, we have to make sure that the
> >>>> community,
> >>>> one that is ever outreaching, has adequate oversight. We need the
> >>>> SMCM
> >>>> in order to replace NTIA's ultimate responsibility. This cannot
> be a
> >>>> transition of the absence of oversight, but rather must be a
> >>>> transition
> >>>> to community oversight. It is this that I don't think the Board
> has
> >>>> accepted, and that is the crux of the matter. I think it is
> >>>> something
> >>>> that the CWG proposal requires.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am not convinced that the proposed voting mechanism is save
> >>>> enough against capture. I did not get a satisfying rationale
> why
> >>>> Advisory Committees are treated so differently in the proposed
> >>>> mechanism. I have my doubts how governments can be included in
> >>>> an appropriate way into this new mechanism without touching
> the
> >>>> well designed balance between governments and the
> >>>> non-governmental stakeholders in the ICANN ecosystem. And
> there
> >>>> are other detailed questions.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In one respect, I agree with you. I want all ACSO to have equal
> >>>> footing in the SMCM, but am in the minority on that one as I want
> >>>> its
> >>>> structure to resemble essence of the matrix balance that exists in
> >>>> the
> >>>> ICANN system architecture. Nonetheless, I do not see major
> >>>> opportunity
> >>>> for capture in the reference model as the initiation mechanisms
> for
> >>>> action and the vote thresholds are so high they do not facilitate
> >>>> capture. And the simpler we are allowed to implement, the less
> >>>> chance
> >>>> there will be for capture and other shenanigans.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The Sole Membership Model, as it is proposed now, is still too
> >>>> vague, too unbalanced, too confusing.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I disagree. It is fairly direct and limited. It has defined
> scope
> >>>> and
> >>>> functions. The only fuzzy part is the voting thresholds and the
> >>>> modalities by which it worst internally, but that is an
> >>>> implementation
> >>>> detail.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is not yet ready for adoption.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> We disagree on this.
> >>>>
> >>>> It needs a lot of more work.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> We agree on this, but those are implementation details. That fact
> >>>> of an
> >>>> SMCM is not a mere operationalization detail as the Board seems to
> >>>> claim, but its implementation modalities may be.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are too many weak points. Go back to the table which was
> >>>> presented by Sidley in Paris where they showed us the plus and
> >>>> minus of the three models. It is true that the Sole Membership
> >>>> Model was the best of the three with more plus and less minus
> >>>> than the other two. But in total, all the three models were
> far
> >>>> away to meet the NTIA criteria, to be save enough against
> >>>> capture and to enhance ICANNs operational stability and
> >>>> security. More innovation, more creativity and more careful
> >>>> analysis are needed. I raised my doubts in BA. I repeated this
> >>>> in Paris. And I raised my voice in the various telcos.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I think you will find if you investigate it that many of the
> >>>> weaknesses
> >>>> of the model have been dealt with. perhaps Sidley and Adler will
> >>>> help
> >>>> us with that.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> My first proposal was to dislink the discussion of the sole
> >>>> membership model from WS 1 and to have more time to go into
> the
> >>>> details of such a needed new mechanism in WS 2. This is
> >>>> obviously impossible. We have to propose something here and
> now
> >>>> within WS 1. I know that some CCWG members have mistrust into
> a
> >>>> long-term process and speculate that if they do not get it now
> >>>> they will get it never. I think this is wrong. The process is
> >>>> unstoppable.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Again you miss the point about the SMCM being the the keystone in
> >>>> this
> >>>> system construction. Removing it requires going back to the
> >>>> beginning
> >>>> as it holds everything together.
> >>>>
> >>>> As soon as WS1 in complete, the process will be stoppable unless
> the
> >>>> community model has been implemented. As long as the Board
> remains
> >>>> unchecked, and only accessible by appeal, a system that has failed
> >>>> at
> >>>> ICANN since its beginnings, there will be no way fro redress Board
> >>>> actiions. If there is one thing ICANN has nearly always failed in
> >>>> it is
> >>>> redress mechanisms. After all these years of failure in redress
> >>>> mechanism why should anyone be convinced on ICANN's future redress
> >>>> mechanisms. Here we have proof of what doesn't work. New RR,
> IRP,
> >>>> ombudsman roles roles &c, are the experimental part of this
> >>>> proposal. I
> >>>> have faith that with a SMCM we can insure that there are genuine
> >>>> improvements to the redress mechanisms, but in today's Board
> >>>> configuration, it is impossible to believe in redress at ICANN.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> My impression is that the majority in the community sees this
> >>>> indeed as an ongoing process of ICANNs improvement which will
> >>>> not stop with the IANA transition. In BA I argued that after
> the
> >>>> IANA transition (WS 1) and an enhanced accountability (WS 2)
> we
> >>>> will need to discuss a restructuring of ICANN to adjust its
> >>>> various SOs and ACs and CCWGs to the new challenges of a
> >>>> changing environment. I did call this ³WS 3² and ³ICANN 2020².
> >>>> And I also argued that small steps are better than big jumps.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes any organization that does not continually improve is doomed.
> >>>> but
> >>>> we should get to a point of sufficient accountability in good
> time,
> >>>> and
> >>>> leave the future to necessary tweaking.
> >>>>
> >>>> I find the invention of WS3 to be the first step in the process of
> >>>> taking decisions out of WS2 and see it as the tip of the spear for
> >>>> thwarting future change. Anything hard, lets push it to WS2, and
> >>>> then to
> >>>> WS3...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> More or less we are witnessing now what Bill Clinton told us
> in
> >>>> San Francisco that getting Internet Governance right is like
> >>>> stumbling forward. As longs as it goes forward, it is ok. And
> >>>> what we are doing now is to prepare the next (small) stumbling
> >>>> step forward. With other words, we have to be patient and to
> do
> >>>> now what can be done now and what is needed under WS 1 to
> allow
> >>>> the termination of the IANA contract. But this will not be the
> >>>> end of the story. It will go on.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I am not quite the Bill Clinton fan you are. And find that too
> much
> >>>> stumbling, as we often see among the Clintons, is not really the
> >>>> best
> >>>> example. Yes, if we are about to fall, stumbling forward is
> >>>> preferable,
> >>>> but I would prefer to see us get our multistakeholder model beyond
> >>>> the
> >>>> stumbling phase.
> >>>>
> >>>> As for being patient, sorry, been too long coming. We have been
> >>>> patient. My experience is of at least of decade of 'soon come.'
> >>>> For
> >>>> others it is much longer.
> >>>>
> >>>> But if patient I must be, I am ready to be patient now and wait
> for
> >>>> transition until we are ready.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> And here is a final observation. To put it like Greg as a
> >>>> conflict as ³Board on Top² vs. ³Community on Top² is
> misleading.
> >>>> Both the members of the Board and the members of the CCWG are
> >>>> selected by the community. Both are accountable to the
> >>>> community. As I said in the chat during the recent telco we
> all
> >>>> are sitting in one boat (or in one car) and want to have a
> >>>> better, stable, secure, efficient and accountable ICANN with
> >>>> more (and stress-tested) checks and balances in the system.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The politics of Tops and Bottoms is always tough unless there is
> >>>> real
> >>>> mutual trust of each party by the other. You claim that the
> >>>> community
> >>>> does not trust the Board, that may be the case among some parts of
> >>>> the
> >>>> community. I claim that a far greater lack of trust is displayed
> >>>> by the
> >>>> Board for the community. I think many of your comments are
> colored
> >>>> by a
> >>>> pervasive distrust of the community and its purported drive to
> >>>> capture
> >>>> and game.
> >>>>
> >>>> Once a community member becomes a Board member she adopts a new
> >>>> perspective and set of responsibilities. This is what makes the
> >>>> Board
> >>>> another part of the community while not representing the
> community.
> >>>> For
> >>>> a the Board to become a genuine member of the community, it needs
> to
> >>>> give up its role as benevolent despot and accept the need for the
> >>>> community to balance its power. ICANN needs a community that can
> >>>> check
> >>>> and balance the Board's unilateral power.
> >>>>
> >>>> The CCWG model defines a degree of power sharing between the two
> as
> >>>> the
> >>>> best solution for replacing NTIA oversight.
> >>>>
> >>>> avri
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Wolfgang
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>>> Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> im
> >>>> Auftrag von Avri Doria
> >>>> Gesendet: Sa 05.09.2015 08:17
> >>>> An: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> >>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> >>>> Betreff: 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-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-through-the-last-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-through-the-last-mile#%
> >>>> 3E%3Chttps://
> www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mi
> >>>> le#%3E%3Chttps://
> www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-las
> >>>> t-mile#%3E%3Chttps://
> www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the
> >>>> -last-mile#%3E%3Chttps://
> www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through
> >>>> -the-last-mile#%3E%3Chttps://
> www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-thr
> >>>> ough-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-Septem
> >>>> ber/005160.html>,
> >>>> notes
> >>>> around 10 points
> >>>>
> >>>> <
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-Septem
> >>>> ber/005161.html>
> >>>>
> >>>> <
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-Septem
> >>>> ber/005161.html%3E>),
> >>>> 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
> >>>> <mailto: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
> >>>> <mailto: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
> >>>> <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
> >>>> 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
>
>
> ---
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150909/30226918/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list