[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in

David Post Postd at erols.com
Mon Sep 14 12:31:39 UTC 2015 

My apologies if someone has pointed this out 
already, but there's one feature of the Board's 
proposal that is very disturbing.  The memo 
describing the proposed enforceability regime 
[https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission121.pdf] 
outlines the process:

"4. to initiate formal MEM proceedings, the 
agreed number of SOs and ACs must support the 
petition. If there is sufficient support amongst 
the SOs and ACs then representatives of those 
supporting SOs and ACs would become the MEM Issue Group.

5. The MEM Issue Group would then submit a 
Request for Arbitration to the Standing Panel 
alleging a violation of at least one Fundamental Bylaw ..."

This completely inverts (and subverts) the nature 
of the process we have been discussing for 
months.  Instead of a Board that (a) is empowered 
to act by stakeholder consensus, and is (b) kept 
in check by an IRP process in which its actions 
can be challenged by anyone materially affected 
by the action (or by any of the SOs and ACs, 
acting on its own), the new proposal turns that 
upside down:  Under the proposal, stakeholder 
consensus is required to BLOCK Board action - the 
challenge can go forward only if "the agreed 
number of SOs and ACs" support the challenge .

That is a very fundamental change in the 
relationship between the stakeholders and the 
Board, and not for the better. It makes it MUCH 
more difficult to challenge Board action that is 
inconsistent with the Bylaws.

And maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get 
how this new "MEM Arbitration" scheme doesn't 
completely destroy the IRP.  The Board says

"Establishment of the MEM is not intended to 
replace existing IRP procedures. The MEM provides 
a legally enforceable arbitration decision on 
violations of ICANN’s Fundamental Bylaws."

It may not have been intended, but surely this 
task was precisely the one that the IRP was 
supposed to take on, and now it's being 
off-loaded to some arbitration system.  How does that "not replace" the IRP?

David




At 09:49 AM 9/12/2015, Carlos Raul wrote:

>Chris, Paul
>
>It is my personal view that since ATRT1 the 
>community has been asking for a better 
>specific  "rationale" of Boards decisions. Not 
>longer or shorter, but BETTER and coming from 
>the Board (or Committee) itself (consensus or 
>not);and NOT from Staff (outside counsel) si the 
>community has a better understanding of the decisions (or proposal).
>
>This question to me in this case has been framed 
>in terms of "enforcibilty" and the risk of 
>capture of the single member as per the memo. I 
>look forward to my next half day in airports and 
>flights  to look for the RATIONALE of these two very significant arguments.
>
>Have a nice weekend you both.
>
>Carlos Raúl
>On Sep 12, 2015 9:31 AM, "Paul Rosenzweig" 
><<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> 
>wrote:
>
>With respect Chris, I am deeply serious.  The 
>board’s commitment to the multi-stakeholder model is not.
>
>Â
>
>And as for “size” when it reflects depth of 
>analysis, yes … it usually does 
>matter.  Glibness is easy when brevity is the 
>goal.  Thoughtful consideration requires extended analysis.Â
>
>Â
>
>A CCWG process that has gone on for nearly a 
>year and involved 100s of members of the 
>community in meeting taking place across the 
>globe and tens of thousands of man hours does, 
>actually, produce a proposal that has the 
>consensus of the Community.  The Board’s 
>brief “we don’t like it and here is our 
>three page counter proposal” does not deserve our respect.Â
>
>Â
>
>Paul
>
>Â
>
>Paul Rosenzweig
>
><mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
>
>
>O: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>+1 (202) 547-0660
>
>M: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>+1 (202) 329-9650
>
>VOIP: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>+1 (202) 738-1739
>
>Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>
><http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>Link 
>to my PGP Key
>
>Â
>
>Â
>
>From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo at auda.org.au]
>Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 8:20 AM
>To: Paul Rosenzweig 
><<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>Cc: Accountability Cross Community 
><<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
>
>Â
>
>Ah
sso, clearly, size does matter
.to some
..
>
>Â
>
>With respect, you can’t be serious.
>
>Â
>
>Â
>
>Cheers,
>
>Â
>
>Chris
>
>Â
>
>On 12 Sep 2015, at 21:50 , Paul Rosenzweig 
><<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> 
>wrote:
>
>Â
>
>Dear Seun
>
>Â
>
>With respect, you can’t be serious.  The 
>Board’s alternate proposal is a 3-page 
>memo.  The CCWG’s proposal is an integrated 
>180 page documents which, even if you limit 
>yourself to the parts directly related to the 
>Single Member model (not including stress tests, 
>or the fundamental bylaws themselves) is roughly 
>8-10x as long (depending on how you count it) 
.
>
>Â
>
>Paul
>
>Â
>
>Paul Rosenzweig
>
><mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>
>O: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>+1 (202) 547-0660
>
>M: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>+1 (202) 329-9650
>
>VOIP: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>+1 (202) 738-1739
>
>Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>
><http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>Link 
>to my PGP Key
>
>Â
>
>Â
>
>From:Â Seun Ojedeji 
>[<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]Â
>Sent:Â Friday, September 11, 2015 9:40 PM
>To:Â Jordan Carter <<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>Cc:Â Accountability Cross Community 
><<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>Subject:Â Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
>
>Â
>
>Hi Jordan,
>
>I don't think there is so much details to 
>develop than what we currently have with the 
>sole member (which by the way also requires a lot of details).
>
>I think the main question we need to ask the 
>CCWG legal is whether the leadership of the 
>SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal 
>standing under the California law. Every other 
>aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and just 
>the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is 
>what lawyers needs to come in on.
>
>Perhaps it's also good to note that what is 
>being proposed by board has been discussed one 
>way or the other in the past but somehow we did 
>not follow-up on the thoughts up.
>
>Regards
>
>Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
>Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
>hi all
>
>Â
>
>You may be interested to read the comments from 
>the ICANN board which have now been lodged:
>
>Â
>
><http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.html>http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.html
>
>Â
>
>I'd draw your attention to the cover note / 
>summary and to the memo on the MEM.
>
>Â
>
>It's good to see some concrete proposals from 
>the Board to take into account as we refine the proposal.
>
>Â
>
>An initial observation - there is a lot of 
>detail that would need to be developed if the 
>alternative proposal was to be complete enough 
>to undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan.
>
>Â
>
>Happy reading!
>
>Â
>
>Cheers
>
>JordanÂ
>
>
>
>--Â
>Jordan Carter
>Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>
><tel:%2B64-21-442-649>+64-21-442-649Â |Â 
><mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>
>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>Â
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>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

*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music 
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic  publications 
etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150914/0e27c803/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list