This is really quite a baffling last-second attempt to throw together a bunch of half-truths and outright misstatements, casting unwarranted aspersions on the careful work that this group with an objective that is entirely unclear. Any examination of these statements causes them to fall like a house of cards.
It was pretty obvious once you examined the proposal as is the political reality that giving any voting power to the United States military, through it's 3/12 member representation at RSSAC, is going to cause problems.
The membership of RSSAC is public knowledge and has been for the duration of this CCWG. A voting role for the RSSAC has been a possibility for months, and no one raised this "issue." I'm always skeptical when somebody says something is "obvious" -- it usually means it's BS. This attempt to trump up problems is so slapdash that the (readily available) facts aren't even accurate. There are 3 root servers under the US government, but only two are associated with the US military -- the third is controlled by NASA, a civilian agency. These have been around pretty much since the dawn of Internet time, so claiming this is suddenly a problem is really quite absurd. Are there any issues from the history of ICANN that can be cited as arising from the control of these root servers, or the membership of their (civilian) administrators in RSSAC. This just seems like FUD. Calling it a "mistake" doesn't make it one.
As far as "illusion" busting, whether one participant decides to oppose for a series of manufactured reasons that don't hold water does not "bust" consensus. Going back to those reasons, for a little "myth-busting":
1) inclusion of the U.S. military as a voting member through RSSAC,
Answered above
2) an unwarranted change of the power balance and functions of the respective SOAC's when compared to current voting arrangements, which violates the CCWG policy published in the legal scoping document of 19 March 2015 , a consensus policy whose reversal has not been discussed or approved by the group,
There are no "current voting arrangements," unless one is referring to the ICANN Board, which is quite a different thing than this community mechanism; it's completely unclear and unexplained what "CCWG policy" is being "violated" -- misusing the term "consensus policy" to give this unsupported claim a sense of gravitas is really quite amusing...
3) the lack of safeguard against capture through coordinated manipulation taking advantage of the possibility of parties to simultaneously belong to multiple SO's and AC's,
This is another summary "issue" that's never been raised before and magically appears now without any explanation or clarification. What possibility is being referred to? There has been some discussion of the possibility of parties being members of different constituencies or SGs in the GNSO, but that's been dealt with already (such parties can only vote in one such organization) and is clearly not what's being referred to here. There's a lot of scary, FUD-y words being thrown around but absolutely no substance -- no explanation, no detail, no credibility. The fact that a root server operator may also be a registry operator (among hundreds of registry operator), or that a GAC member may also be a ccNSO operator (among a couple hundred ccNSO registry operators) does not somehow become a concern due to vague imprecations in a rushed email, which won't even be defended by its author.
4) problems of double dipping per number 3 which violate the principle of one person / one party one vote which is customary international law and required by ICANN through it's Bylaws commitment to adhere to international law
This is just a restatement of number 3, and fails along with it
. Trying to inflate some unstated minor occurrence (which I assume to be the overlaps stated above) into some self-styled "double dipping" problem just doesn't hold water. Being a member of two different bodies or committees does not violate "one party/one vote" and claiming this somehow be a violation of international law is just hysterical (in both senses of the word).
...plus likely a number of other problems that neither of us have thought of given the rushed nature of things.
This basically translates as "I can't think of any problems, but there must be some." That is hardly the kind of objection that even merits a response.
Finally, I disagree with the characterization of the 5/2 proposal, and think that the suggested statement would be neither truthful nor transparent -- rather, it would by false and hyperbolic.
I must give my esteemed colleague points for inventiveness, but none for substance. This is the virtual equivalent of throwing a stink-bomb into the middle of a meeting and then running away. Thankfully, we don't need to clear the room to get rid of the odor.
If this an attempt to buy more time for some colleagues who are still working on minority statements, I can also give points for loyalty. But the schedule for publication of this document has been well-known for weeks. It's unfortunate that some could not plan ahead to meet that timeframe. I hardly think it's prejudicial if these are published or notified to the public comment page a couple of days after the Report -- appropriate notice can be made that minority reports are expected. Using a loaded term like "separate but equal" (harkening back to the dark days of racial segregation in the US) to describe this strays into demagoguery. Claiming "we all know" things is no more convincing than saying something is "obvious" -- everyone's entitled to their opinion, but not to claim that it is "known" by anyone other than themselves. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, in this instance or in the instance of our proposal in general.
It would be helpful if there were some indication of the real goal and concern behind this, rather than a bunch of baseless accusations. As it is, I remain baffled at what is hoped to be accomplished other than an attempt at delay.
Greg