Cheers,
Chris
On 8 Oct 2015, at 19:47 , Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:-1"the Board continues to go their own way
and stands in opposition to the community, we may not. We need to
complete our work quickly with the fixes and then, as always, it is in
the Board's hands. We have already lost several weeks because of the
spanner thrown when the Board produced their own proposal for
accountability. Just imagine where we would have been had the Board met
with us in LA with the attitude of working with the community instead of
against it.²
Counterproductive, in my opinion. Letıs not suggest that the community is
in full agreement on the 2nd draft CCWG proposal, it is not.
Letıs not suggest that the board is (nothing but) working against us, it
is not. We have agreement on the most important ingredients of the
proposal: specific powers for the community that can be enforced. We do
not have agreement on the mechanism to implement these. If we want that,
and I assume we do, both the board AND we have to change the way we
communicate and collaborate with each other.
Letıs stay focussed on our mission, our goals and bridging the gap.
Enlarging it, will only help us fail.
Best,
Roelof Meijer
On 07-10-15 13:29, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on
behalf of Avri Doria" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on
behalf of avri@acm.org> wrote:Hi,
My reading of this is that if the Board is willing to accept the CCWG
proposals, which do reflect broad agreement, then we can make the
schedule. If, on the the hand the Board continues to go their own way
and stands in opposition to the community, we may not. We need to
complete our work quickly with the fixes and then, as always, it is in
the Board's hands. We have already lost several weeks because of the
spanner thrown when the Board produced their own proposal for
accountability. Just imagine where we would have been had the Board met
with us in LA with the attitude of working with the community instead of
against it.
I also think the doomsday scenarios are just a bit exaggerated. We have
to stop scaring people with the G77 boogeyman. And if the Protocols and
Number no longer trust ICANN, they will go their own way, whether it is
before transition or after, they have been crystal clear about those
intentions - it could happen anytime - why would the status quo of
continuing NTIA oversight convince them to leave ICANN? I do agree with
point V, if the Board continues to overrule the multistakeholder
process, it will become ever harder to convince people that this is a
workable modality for decision making.
avri
On 07-Oct-15 06:11, Malcolm Hutty wrote:On 2015-10-07 08:03, Mathieu Weill wrote:You will find attached the set of slides that was prepared by ICANN
and presented during the calls.
Wow, that slide on page 4 ("5 risks we face if the IANA Stewardship
Transition is Delayed/Fails") is a contentious parade of horribles if
ever I saw one!
Setting that aside as merely disputatious, page 5 ("4 Remaining
Questions
on The Road to Transition") is interesting.
Firstly, the framing - that these are indeed the questions, and the only
gating questions, is certainly open to debate. But the answers don't
currently point to swift completion either.
Here is my assessment.
Q. "Do we have broad agreement on ALL the elements to address the CWG
Dependencies?"
A. Within CCWG, using its proposal as the base: yes.
Between CCWG and Board, on the Board's counter-proposal: Not really.
There is no agreement as to whether the power to challenge the Budget
and Strategic Plan would be effectively available in the absence of
the SMM,
which the Board opposes. Our Counsel raises key concerns about this in
their recent memo comparing the Board proposal with our own.
And this power (or some variant) is noted as being a CWG requirement.
Q. "Do we have broad agreement on the requirements and enforceability of
the five community powers?"
A. Within CCWG, on its proposal: yes.
Between CCWG and Board, on the Board's counter-proposal: No. The
enforceability
of the five community powers in the absence of the SMM is a
significant area
of disagreement; there is no agreement within CCWG that the MEM is an
effective
alternative means to ensure enforceability.
Q "Are the above areas of broad agreement consistent with NTIA
criteria and do
they meet the requirements for a safe/secure transition of U.S.
Government stewardship?"
A. Within CCWG, we are content that our proposal would achieve this.
Between CCWG and Board, neither party accepts that the other's
proposal would
achieve satisfy the NTIA criteria. For the Board, the CCWG's reforms
pose
a risk to "safe and secure" stability of ICANN; for CCWG, the removal
of NTIA
oversight without its replacement by accountability mechanisms that it
agrees
to be effective and enforceable poses just as great a risk, and of
like kind. Moreover,
the Board's counter-proposal omits or reduces* safeguards the CCWG
thought
necessary to guarantee the openness of the Internet, another NTIA
requirement.
[* Discussion on this hasn't yet concluded; the Board might argue
that it
offers adequate alternatives, and while some in CCWG may have
arrived at
a firm conclusion to the contrary; others may be yet to make up
their minds.
What cannot be contested is that the CCWG as a whole has not has
not yet
accepted the adequacy of the Board's counter in relation to this
particular
NTIA criterion, which stands independently and complementary to
the "safe and
secure" criterion. See also below for comments on the need for a
systematic
re-evaluation.]
Q. Do we have broad agreement on an assured process to continuously
improve ICANNıs
accountability and evolve its governance structure?
A. Not really. CCWG has tasked itself with addressing in WS1 only
those items that
must be addressed before transition, and has chosen to leave
everything else to a
WS2 that it trusts will be continued. The Board seemingly proposes
closing down CCWG upon
transition, ending WS2 as a distinct programme and leaving those
issues to be
addressed by disparate parts of the community (although it is not
clear that the
SOs even have the capacity to initiate proposals on all WS2 issues).
So there is
no agreement between CCWG and the Board on the process for continuous
improvement
either.
Once again, an overview from ICANN that seems intended to force the
pace actually
shows how much still remains to be agreed. Perhaps this will persuade
the Board to
rethink its opposition to the considered view of the community, worked
on by this
group so intensively for almost a year.
One thing the slidedeck does usefully point up is that before agreeing
to abandon its
proposal in favour of the Board's counter, even if it were minded to
do so, CCWG
would need to do a full re-evaluation against the NTIA criteria and
stress tests
to determine its adequacy. Our assessment of how our proposal
satisfies the stress tests
is only an assessment of OUR proposal, not of the Board's counter.
Accordingly, if the Board remains unwilling to accept the
cross-community proposal,
this slidedeck suggests to me that expectations management, rather
than "racing
to the finish line", is the more prudent course of action.
That further demonstrates how unhelpful and counter-productive is the
scaremongering
on page 4.
Malcolm.
---
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