[CCWG-ACCT] recap and next steps?

Phil Corwin psc at vlaw-dc.com
Sun Feb 21 18:37:15 UTC 2016

There is no argument that cats will need to be herded in either model for the exercise of accountability.

What I was commenting on was the degree of spinal strength demonstrated by the cats when they confront Board pushback. None of us, I hope, wants the I in ICANN to stand for Invertebrate.

Meow ;-)

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004

Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca] 
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 1:28 PM
To: Phil Corwin; Schaefer, Brett; Jordan Carter
Cc: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] recap and next steps?

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.


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
>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?
>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?
>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
>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? :-)
>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-Co
>mmunity at icann.org> 
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>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

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 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list