Hi,
Thad should have been,
We can have consensus as long as we do as we are told.
Have our meetings become negotiations on the terms of surrender?
avri
> Hi,
>
> I think we can have consensus as long as we as we told.
> Is this the new ICANN definition for the word?
>
> avri
>
> On 05-Oct-15 22:44, Jordan Carter wrote:
>> Steve, all
>>
>> In finalising the CCWG's proposal, the ICANN board is a stakeholder -
>> an important one.
>>
>> It has a later role as a decision-maker, according to criteria that
>> have already been established by Board resolution.
>>
>> A careful multi-stakeholder process over almost a year has analysed
>> the community's requirements and come up with a model that can do it -
>> based around membership.
>>
>> The Board has abused its role as a decision-maker in this process. In
>> effect, it has sought to replace the open, public, deliberative
>> proposal development process with its own definition of what the
>> community requires, and its own solution that can deliver its
>> evaluation of those requirements.
>>
>> In doing so, it has profoundly challenged the legitimacy of the
>> multi-stakeholder model of decision-making that ICANN and its Board
>> claim to uphold.
>>
>> Worse, as a matter of process, the Board has attempted to use its
>> decisional role at the end of the Accountability to move the
>> trajectory of debate away from what the community's requirements,
>> fairly analysed dictate -- trying to force the group to "jump the
>> tracks" and into a solution that is unlikely to be able to deliver on
>> those requirements.
>>
>> It's an ugly display of force in what should be a rational and
>> requirements-based conversation.
>>
>> I sincerely regret the Board's choice as a group to take that
>> approach. The effect is to give fodder to all of those people,
>> countries and groups who have long argued that the entire notion of
>> multi-stakeholder Internet policymaking is a charade, behind which
>> decisions are made simply and alone by "the people who matter".
>>
>> In terms of the CCWG's work, this email combined with your statement
>> in Los Angeles reduce the chances of any consensus being able to
>> emerge between what the Board has asked for and what the CCWG has
>> developed.
>>
>>
>> It leaves me very sad that the groups here (Board and CCWG) have
>> arrived at this position. There is an apparent lack of listening and
>> comprehension; few displays of empathy or willingness to see things
>> from another point of view; and a consequent inability to really talk
>> through and resolve the conflicting perspectives and aims here.
>>
>> I hoped the Board might make some overtures in that direction. I know
>> I and other CCWG members have been trying to do. To get this sort of
>> response indicates that that attempt serves no further purpose.
>>
>>
>> What are others' views about how we proceed from here? I confess
>> myself mystified.
>>
>> Look forward to speaking with you all in a few hours.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jordan
>>
>>
>> On 6 October 2015 at 15:21, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@icann.org
>> <mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org>> wrote:
>>
>> CCWG,
>>
>> We appreciate the continued work that the CCWG is doing to
>> consider the public comments received on its second draft report.
>> Following the Los Angeles F2F we have heard suggestions that a
>> Designator model relying on California statutes may be a
>> replacement for the Sole Member model that was in the second draft
>> report.
>>
>> To be clear, the concerns that the Board raised on the Sole Member
>> model still apply to a Designator model. The Designator model
>> still introduces a new legal structure with powers that are
>> intrinsically beyond the structure we have been using. We
>> understand that many believe it is possible to constrain these
>> powers in order to provide established protections, accountability
>> and thresholds: This is unproven territory and will require more
>> detail and time to understand and test the impact on our bedrock
>> multistakeholder balance.
>>
>> Further, it is unclear that this would represent the full
>> multistakeholder community because we do not know yet which SO/ACs
>> will join now or later. Moreover, the same community
>> accountability issues present in the Sole Member are present in
>> the Designator model.
>>
>> Steve del Bianco’s constructive suggestion over the weekend that
>> the Board could commit to a future governance structure review
>> triggered by key factors seems like a good path forward. This can
>> be enshrined in a new fundamental bylaw that would require the
>> holding of a future governance structure review if SOs and ACs
>> agree to kick off that review.
>>
>> We are all in complete agreement on the objective of enforcement
>> of the five community powers, with new/stronger mechanisms for
>> board removal if/when necessary. Let’s focus on finalizing the
>> details on these consensus elements to enable implementation and a
>> successful transition.
>>
>> Steve Crocker
>> for the ICANN Board of Directors
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jordan Carter
>>
>> Chief Executive
>> *InternetNZ*
>>
>> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
>> Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
>> Skype: jordancarter
>> Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
>>
>> /A better world through a better Internet /
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
---
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