[CCWG-ACCT] recap and next steps?

Sun Feb 21 18:27:50 UTC 2016

Phil, let's be honest. If we had adopted a membership model, it is 
the same cats that we would be herding to exercise membership powers.

Alan

At 21/02/2016 12:24 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:
>"... so what conclusions can be drawn from the fact that we can't 
>even hold the Board to the same rules that we have established for 
>ourselves in this process?"
>
>The same conclusion that can be drawn from the fact that "we" folded 
>on the Member model in Dublin when the Board protested, rather than 
>insisting that ICANN's single member community have the same 
>statutory powers as any other California non-profit corporation.
>
>Don't get me wrong. The accountability powers in the current 
>proposal are far more robust than what we have at present. But 
>getting the level of community cohesion to exercise the more 
>powerful ones will be like herding cats.
>
>Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>Virtualaw LLC
>1155 F Street, NW
>Suite 1050
>Washington, DC 20004
>202-559-8597/Direct
>202-559-8750/Fax
>202-255-6172/cell
>
>Twitter: @VlawDC
>
>"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
>[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf 
>Of Schaefer, Brett
>Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 6:59 AM
>To: Jordan Carter
>Cc: Accountability Cross Community
>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] recap and next steps?
>
>Jordan,
>
>This is a good summary.
>
>I am offended at how the Board has abused its power in this process 
>by violating process, procedure and timelines to push its agenda.
>
>I would ask one additional question. Our entire proposal is focused 
>on how to make ICANN accountable to the community, so what 
>conclusions can be drawn from the fact that we can't even hold the 
>Board to the same rules that we have established for ourselves in this process?
>
>Best,
>
>Brett
>
>
>________________________________
>Brett Schaefer
>Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory 
>Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for 
>National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation
>214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
>Washington, DC 20002
>202-608-6097
>heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
>
>On Feb 20, 2016, at 10:28 PM, Jordan Carter 
><jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
>
>Hi all
>
>I'm trying for a recap / reset in this message, not sure I succeed 
>but trying to help the discussion along.
>
>Here's the background that has caused the current extension of 
>debate, as I understand it:
>
>- CCWG incorporated the idea that a decisional participant with a 
>special role (GAC's advisory role that requires due deference by the 
>Board, unique among ACs) should not be a decision-maker in applying 
>accountability powers in relation to the consequences of that role. 
>(In other words, GAC can choose - either consensus advice, or the 
>ability to decide on accountability powers re its views - but not both).
>
>- if GAC is excluded from decisions, there would likely be four 
>other SOs and ACs participating.
>
>- CCWG developed a principle that the use of community powers should 
>not require unanimity for their use, so a proposal was made that the 
>threshold for the Board Removal power should lower to 3 in such a situation.
>
>- the debate since has been about when that lower threshold of 3 
>SOs/ACs should apply.
>
>   - some participants think it's only if an IRP holds that the 
> Board has breached the mission / bylaws
>
>   - other participants think it's broader than that and applies 
> whenever the cause is related to Board responses to GAC advice
>
>- the Board has repeatedly said that it does not want the "no 
>unanimity" principle to apply, but is willing to accept the lower 
>threshold where an IRP finds against it.
>
>-  there seems to be disagreement about what the CCWG actually 
>decided in this, which is driving the discussion.
>
>
>So here is what I think are some basics that we have to do:
>
>- we have to reach clarity about what precisely we have decided, and 
>if there were any gaps in that, they need to be specified.
>
>- we have to decide what to do if that clarity exposes alternatives 
>that haven't been decided between - that may include a position that 
>the Board isn't happy with.
>
>- we have to choose alternative that can drive the widest possible 
>consensus within the group (unlike Steve Crocker's email, I don't 
>think that a decision on this can be pushed to implementation)
>
>- we have to publish the report
>
>I'm not a spokesperson for the leadership team but I can say that 
>I'll be doing what I can with the co-chairs and other rapporteurs to 
>help make sure that the options are as clear as they can be for our 
>meeting on Tuesday -- so that the chances of confusion are as low as possible.
>
>I've said before that I don't mind where the group finalises on this 
>issue.  Here's why
>
>I do not think it's likely that the community is going to use the 
>new accountability powers to disagree with Board implementation of 
>matters that include GAC advice in the future.  There are a number 
>of reasons why I hold that view, two key ones being:
>
>- the improving transparency of GAC advice and particularly the 
>GNSO/GAC engagement and the Board/GAC engagement
>- the existence of the new accountability framework, which makes it 
>less likely the Board will go against strong community sentiment
>
>If I thought this was an important issue which would have a 
>significant impact on our package, and that it was a life or death 
>matter to resolve one way or the other, I would be very offended by 
>the way this has played out in the past few days.  But because the 
>stakes are so low on the substance, I am *very* happy to fall into 
>consensus with whatever direction the group wants to go, and I *do 
>not* see this as an issue where *anyone* should be adopting 
>non-negotiable positions.
>
>I don't expect that everyone will agree with me that this simply 
>isn't that important an issue, but I really hope that as a CCWG, we 
>can put this matter into perspective.  The CCWG has to come to a 
>conclusion on that, and get the report out.
>
>
>SO -- hopefully on Tuesday we can work through the options in front 
>of us and come to a decision about what to do.
>
>If any party gets to the point on this issue that they feel like 
>dying in the ditch is worth it, well may I humbly suggest that you 
>find yourself a ditch? :-)
>
>
>best
>Jordan
>
>--
>Jordan Carter
>
>Chief Executive
>InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet
>
>+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
>Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>Skype: jordancarter
>Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>-----
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community