[CWG-Stewardship] Agenda item 5 - Alternate proposals
h.raiche at internode.on.net
h.raiche at internode.on.net
Thu Dec 18 19:07:09 UTC 2014
So well put. Thank you Bertrand - well said. (and, yes I agree 100%)
Hollly
On Fri 19/12/14 4:38 AM , Bertrand de La Chapelle bdelachapelle at gmail.com sent:
> Milton,
> As I mentioned on the call, we need to be careful even when we label
> this "internal to iCANN" solution. Because we then confuse, as we too
> often do, ICANN staff, ICANN Board and ICANN community.
> I think what people exploring alternatives or potential improvements
> mean is that they want to build upon the existing building blocks of
> the ICANN community rather than something entirely external.
> One of the arguments that I think underpins this effort is the
> perceived vulnerability of any entirely new, unfunded and unstaffed
> architecture that would in many ways resemble the vulnerability of the
> early ICANN.
> Just to try and clarify the terms of the debate.
> B.
>
> "_Le plus beau métier des hommes, cest dunir les hommes_ ", Antoine
> de Saint Exupéry
> ("_There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans_")
>
> BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE
>
> Internet border:none">
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Bertrand
>
> Correction accepted: I should say the “internal to ICANN
> solution”….
>
>
>
> ;-)
>
>
>
> FROM: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com]
> SENT: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:10 AM
> TO: Milton L Mueller
> CC: Alan Greenberg; CWG Stewardship
> SUBJECT: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Agenda item 5 - Alternate proposals
>
>
>
> Milton,
>
>
>
> can I respectfully but firmly ask you to refrain from labeling people
> who have concerns with the complexities of the currently discussed
> architecture as "advocates of ICANN controlling everything".
>
>
>
> You know it is not true and are too well versed in these discussions
> not to see that the issues are a bit more complex than that.
>
>
>
> Such an attitude does not serve the feeling of mutual respect and
> trust that I would like to prevail in designing a community
> solution.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Bertrand
>
>
>
> "_Le plus beau métier des hommes, cest dunir les hommes_", Antoine
> de Saint Exupéry
> ("_There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans_")
>
> BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE
>
> Internet
> font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#262626">email bdelachapelle at internet
> jurisdiction.net
>
> email bdelachapelle at gmail.com
>
> twitter @IJurisdiction [4] | @bdelachapelle [5]
>
> mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 [6]
>
> www.internetjurisdiction.net [7]
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Interesting that Shawn’s membership proposal (the one published in
> The Hill) is put forward as something “simpler” than the CWG
> proposal. Though I am sympathetic to this proposal, establishing a
> membership would be an extremely complicated and drawn-out change,
> fraught with all kinds of unanticipated implications and
> implementation difficulties.
>
>
>
> Likewise, Alan is suggesting that a set of yet-unknown changes coming
> out of an incomplete process is also “less complicated.” That is
> not a supportable claim. It would be more accurate to say that the
> separability we propose here dramatically simplifies the work of the
> CCWG-Accountability.
>
>
>
> Del Bianco’s “cross-community membership group” (described at
> the end of Alan’s message below) is another proposal mentioned. That
> would be an alternative board that could second-guess ICANN’s board
> in numerous ways and would create a competing power center. The
> complications caused by such a structure are __enormous__, far more so
> than the Contract Co. It is interesting that advocates of ICANN
> controlling everything see such problems with the MRT but no such
> problems with a committee that not only mirrors the composition of the
> MRT but has an unrestricted mandate to overrule the board.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> FROM: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Alan Greenberg
>
>
> Although I believe that the ALAC proposal (
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-naming-transition-01dec14/msg0001
> 1.html[8] ) is the only such alternative presented here, it is not alone. I
> am not advocating the exact details of the proposal referenced in the
> message (see
> http://www.innovationfiles.org/key-principles-for-the-icann-transition/
> [9] and
> http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-pl
> an-needs-new-ideas-to-ensure-accountability[10]), but it does demonstrate that we are not unique in wanting a far
> simpler mode for the new IANA coupled with REAL MULTISTAKEHOLDER
> ACCOUNTABILITY IN ICANN.
>
> I believe that the CCWG *WILL* deliver and I think that we need to
> factor that into our deliberations. Specifically, is there really a
> need for the complexity, cost and associated issues of Contract Co.
> given the same level of control could be provided by a change such as
> this?
>
> Alan
>
> ===================
>
> From: Steve DelBianco
> To: Accountability Cross Community
> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:20:43 +0000
> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Op-Ed from ITIF regarding permanent
> cross-community group as ultimate authority
>
> This pertains to our discussion yesterday about a permanent,
> cross-community "˜Membership" group to hold ICANN board and
> management accountable to the community. It was described this way
> in draft3 [11] for work area 2:
>
> Amend ICANN bylaws to recognize a permanent cross-community
> representative structure (all ACs, SOs, Constituencies) with authority
> to:
>
> Appoint members of Affirmation review teams
>
> Review a board decision, or resolve a dispute (option to use
> independent panel)
>
> Approve changes to ICANN bylaws or Articles, with 2/3 approval
>
> Approve annual proposed ICANN budget
>
> Recall one or all ICANN Board members
>
> One of the groups proposing [12] a community of stakeholders as
> ultimate authority posted a relevant Op-Ed [13] in a Washington paper
> today. Daniel Castro of the Information Technology & Innovation
> Foundation (ITIF) wrote:
>
> California state law applies since ICANN is a registered nonprofit
> corporation in the state. As such, California law allows nonprofit
> organizations to have statutory members. Gunnarson suggests that one
> way to provide an effective check on the ICANN boards power is to
> create statutory members of ICANN with extensive authority over the
> board. This authority could include removing board members,
> overturning board decisions, etc. The statutory members would likely
> include the chairs of the various ICANN "supporting organizations" and
> "advisory committees," such as the Address Supporting Organization
> (ASO) responsible for IP address policy and the Country Code Name
> Supporting Organization (ccNSO) responsible for managing the country
> code top-level domains. To ensure that the statutory members do not
> hold too much sway, their actions could be limited to situations where
> there is a supermajority (i.e., consensus).
>
> We welcome further elaboration of legal basis to enable this
> modification to ICANN’s bylaws in conformance with California
> law.
>
> Steve DelBianco
> Executive Director
> NetChoice
>
> http://www.NetChoice.org [14] and http://blog.netchoice.org [15]
>
> +1.202.420.7482 [16]
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship [17]
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://twitter.com/IJurisdiction
> [2] https://twitter.com/bdelachapelle
> [3] http://www.internetjurisdiction.net
> [4] https://twitter.com/IJurisdiction
> [5] https://twitter.com/bdelachapelle
> [6]
> http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/tel:%2B33%20%280%296%2011%2088%2033%203
> 2[7] http://www.internetjurisdiction.net
> [8]
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-naming-transition-01dec14/msg0001
> 1.html[9]
> http://www.innovationfiles.org/key-principles-for-the-icann-transition/
> [10]
> http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-pl
> an-needs-new-ideas-to-ensure-accountability[11]
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414327/WorkArea2%20Accou
> ntability%20suggestions%20%5Bdraft%203%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDat
> e=1418610739000&api=v2[12]
> http://www.innovationfiles.org/key-principles-for-the-icann-transition/
> [13]
> http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-pl
> an-needs-new-ideas-to-ensure-accountability[14] http://www.netchoice.org/
> [15] http://blog.netchoice.org/
> [16] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/tel:%2B1.202.420.7482
> [17] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list