On Sep 5, 2015, at 7:46 AM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

I agree with Avri completely.  And I, for one, do not want the transition
badly enough that I would capitulate to the Board's effort to completely
distort the proposed process.  Candidly, I find it challenging to respond to
this blog post as it seems to so manifestly confuse ends and means and to
treat the question of means as trivial.

I am delighted that the Board professes to share our end goal of
accountability.  But characterizing its disagreement over how to achieve
that as merely technical is, with due respect, sophistry.  Everyone supports
world peace - but there is a world of difference between those who think it
may be achieved through military deterrence and those who think it should be
accomplished through diplomacy.  

The difference in proposed means could not be more stark.  The CCWG views
the Single Member as a way of the community exercising direct control over
the Board, with the IRP (and courts in California) as rare, infrequent
backups to that relationship and with the community as the entity that has
pre-eminence.  I support that vision.

The Board's proposal sees the IRP and courts as the resolvers of dispute
with the Board retaining its preeminent position and the community reduced
to an (as yet ill defined) role as complainant.  Anyone who has ever done
litigation knows that being the supplicant makes you subservient - and that
is the position the Board's proposal would put the community in.   The
difference is not quite as stark as the one between realpolitik and
diplomacy, but it is both substantial and transformative.  Any effort to
paint agreement on the "ends" as "really near complete agreement" on the
whole of the transition is misleading.  

I understand why the Board does not want to yield power.  That is precisely
why it must.

Paul


Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066



-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org]
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2015 2:17 AM
To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog: Working Together Through The Last Mile

Hi,

The effort to spin the replacement recommendation as just operationalization
is impressive.

I do not understand the references to capture unless they mean capture by
the community from the Board.  I suppose that from their perspective the
CMSM would appear to be capture in and of itself, as it gives the community
a share of the power they now hold for themselves.  I think any discussion
of capture that goes beyond FUD, needs an analysis who who has captured the
current ICANN model.  Capture is always an interesting topic because it
often means: "who is trying to share my power now?"  I am all for opening up
the discussion to the power anlaysi, current, potential and likely.

Additionally, I do not understand this statement:

where the current proposal still warrants much detail that may not be
achievable

While it is true that is needs a bit more detail, though perhaps much less
that is being claimed - until it is time for implementaton, it is not as bad
as all of that.  What do they mean that an adequate level of detail is not
achievable? Though I have learned that if someone does not wish to accept a
proposal, it can never have enough detail.

I think we are facing a critical moment in this transition where we, as a
community, will have to decide whether we want the transition so badly that
we are willing to surrender and let the Board have complete control without
any possibility of ever being subject to oversight ever again.
The transition is the time to switch from NTIA oversight to community
oversight.  If this is not possible, then perhaps the transition should not
go forward.

We need to consider this turn of affairs quite carefully.


avri

On 04-Sep-15 15:53, Grace Abuhamad wrote:

Original
link:
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile


 Working Together Through The Last Mile

<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mil
e#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-
mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-la
st-mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the
-last-mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-
the-last-mile#><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-throu
gh-the-last-mile#>

I'd like to thank everyone who has participated in both the CCWG
briefing to the ICANN Board
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56132981>,
and the CCWG and ICANN board dialogue
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56133316>.
All of our dialogues over the past months have been illuminating,
challenging and in my opinion, an important and true testament to the
multistakeholder model as we work toward the IANA Stewardship Transition.

*/We support the important improvements for ICANN's accountability
contained in the CCWG-Accountability's 2nd Draft Proposal. We endorse
the goal of enforceability of these accountability mechanisms, and we
believe that it is possible to implement the key elements of the
proposal. We want to work together to achieve the elements of the
proposal within the community's timeline while meeting the NTIA
requirements./*

As we enter the final days of the Public Comment period, the Board
wants to be completely clear on our position. We are in agreement on
key concepts set forward in the CCWG's proposal, for example:

 * Fundamental bylaws.
 * Specific requirements for empowering the community into the bylaws
   adoption process.
 * IRP enhancements.
 * Board and director removal.
 * ICANN's mission and core values.
 * Strengthening requirements for empowering the community in the
   budget, operational and strategic planning process.
 * The incorporation of the Affirmation of Commitments Reviews
   intoICANN bylaws.
 * Community ability to enforce the accountability mechanisms in the
   bylaws.

We have suggestions on how these could be operationalized. With
regards to the mechanisms for community enforceability, where the
current proposal still warrants much detail that may not be achievable
we have a suggestion on how to deliver on it in a stable way, as
increased enforceability must not open up questions of, for example,
capture or diminishing of checks and balances.

Let's work together on operationalizing the above principles on which
we agree. Once again, we are committed to providing more detail on how
these ideas can be operationalized in a way that they can be
implemented within the community identified time frame for the
transition, as well as have sufficient tested grounds to not result in
unintended consequences.

During last night's discussion we shared this feedback. It was a lot
of information to digest in a call (notes around opening remarks
<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-Sep
tember/005160.html>, notes around 10 points
<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-Sep
tember/005161.html>), and we appreciate everyone giving our advice
consideration. We are committed to submitting our comments into the
Public Comment process in the next few days, and we look forward to
the working with the community on further details.

It is critical that we work together to build enhanced accountability
forICANN and continue to refine and flesh out details of the
impressive work already done by the community and complete the
IANAStewardship Transition.



_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community