[CCWG-ACCT] Mission Statement
avri at acm.org
Sat Jan 9 17:08:32 UTC 2016
As I explained in my last message I think that a more objective running
of this stress test is possible.
I find it problematic to say new wording does not change the mission
without some sort of testing to inform the conclusion. By all means the
stress test should be as fact based as possible. This may also be a
good function for the advising power of our experts, especially those
who have legal training and have worked in environments where such
discrimination was necessary.
Whether Milton and I, or you and I, ever agree of what is in scope or
out of scope is irrelevant. Can we show that the text is equivalent, is
the question I think needs answering.
There are many other dimensions of the Board acting properly or not.
For example they can make a decision on an in-scope issue without proper
bottom-up process. This would be improper and reason for going to the
escalation process in protest after transition, yet would be irrelevant
on the scope issues that are precipitated by changing the words of the
mission beyond the words needed to satisfy our partners from the other
On 09-Jan-16 09:24, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> On 08/01/2016 20:06, Avri Doria wrote:
>> I think testing the assertion can be done using a stress test.
> At first sight, stress testing accidental changes to the Mission sounds
> sensible and prudent. However, on reflection I think it would be
> completely destructive of the possibility of achieving consensus in this
> Let me explain.
> Milton thinks that when Fadi launched Netmundial he was acting outside
> ICANN's Mission at the time, never mind now. Avri thinks this was within
> the scope of the Mission. Nor is this just Milton and Avri: each of them
> have quite a lot of people who agree with them of this point.
> At the moment, Milton and Avri can agree to disagree: nothing can be
> done about Netmundial now, so the argument is moot. We can move on.
> "Stress testing" for inadvertent changes to the Mission by assessing
> past actions against the proposed text means going back over old
> arguments like this, and seeing who is shown to be right when the
> proposed text is applied. Essentially, this means either (a) proving
> that Milton is unequivocally wrong or (b) accepting that Milton may have
> an arguable point under our proposed text, and so amending it so as to
> remove any opportunity for him to argue his point.
> How could Milton possibly support the outcome of such a process?
> This is not just about this one instance either: stress testing implies
> that we then going on to do the same analysis and text-"correction" for
> any other area where there is a disagreement, or an identifiable
> potential disagreement, as to whether ICANN's past action were within
> the Mission.
> Personally, I happen to agree with Avri on the legitimacy of ICANN's
> involvement in launching Netmundial. But I don't want to prove it at a
> cost of forcing Milton to oppose transition - along with everyone who
> agrees with Milton on this, and everyone else who thinks the Board has
> ever acted improperly in the past.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community