Dear Paul,
Thank you very much for your message and your abnalysis,
I wish if I could continue to support SMM. But we need to avoid the few SSs which would probably participate the voting with 273obUT WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL OF THE CONSEQUENCE THAT FEW sOs h respect, it is not the "few" who have agreed.  As I read the history, the overwhelming majority support the SMM.  There are some questions (per your "b" bullet below) about the precise structure of the SMM, but a mere review of the last 300 (!) messages on the chat and the transcripts from Paris, LA and the Board calls suggests that the if it were put to a straight vote the SMM would win by a large margin.

This is not an argument that the SMM must win.  But it is a counter to the argument that the dissent of a small, but vocal, minority should be able to exercise a heckler's veto over a proposal that the majority of the community supports.  If the multi-stakeholder model means anything, it means compromise in t he first instance, and respect for everyone's views.  But it does not mean regression to the least common denominator or that the community's broader needs must yield to an intransigent minority.

Paul


2015-10-05 16:44 GMT+02:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:

With respect, it is not the "few" who have agreed.  As I read the history, the overwhelming majority support the SMM.  There are some questions (per your "b" bullet below) about the precise structure of the SMM, but a mere review of the last 300 (!) messages on the chat and the transcripts from Paris, LA and the Board calls suggests that the if it were put to a straight vote the SMM would win by a large margin.

This is not an argument that the SMM must win.  But it is a counter to the argument that the dissent of a small, but vocal, minority should be able to exercise a heckler's veto over a proposal that the majority of the community supports.  If the multi-stakeholder model means anything, it means compromise in t he first instance, and respect for everyone's views.  But it does not mean regression to the least common denominator or that the community's broader needs must yield to an intransigent minority.

Paul

--
Sent from myMail app for Android

Monday, 05 October 2015, 10:31AM -04:00 from Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:


Jordan,
We should not pusjh to a particular model SMM  while we have disagreement a) from the Board and b) from people among CCWG ,in partzicular, if the voting arrangements are maintained and if most of the ACs refrain to pop in/ or opt for voting and c) indication from others that with such voting by the ACs the balance between the private sectors and others, on the one hand, and governments on the other hand is c ompromised,
We need to listen to each others and not to few that have already agreed to SMM.
Pls kindly understand that there is diverghence of views .$
Let us find out a consensus along the line that was proposed by Stev and amended by me
Tks
Kavouss  

2015-10-05 16:25 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:


2015-10-05 15:38 GMT+02:00 Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org>:
+ 1 also

On 05/10/2015 13:54, James M. Bladel wrote:
+1. 

Any claims that we must abbreviate accountability reforms in order to fit the IANA transition timeline has those two priorities reversed. 

Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri. 


On Oct 2, 2015, at 19:44, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

Thanks Avri for this nice statement of one of the key dilemmas facing this group.

The divergence between:

- the transition can't happen until accountability is sustainable, and so that requires the member model as a foundation

and

- the transition can't happen if there is a significant change such as that to a member model, and so that requires ruling out the member model


is quite stark.

FWIW my instincts are in line with Avri's. If ICANN's current level of accountability was acceptable, the community would not have demanded an accountability process alongside the transition process, and NTIA would not have agreed the two had to be intertwined and interrelated.


cheers
Jordan


On 1 October 2015 at 10:38, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,

The  Board's critique rests on a notion that the introduction of
anything new in the ICANN system will be a destabilizing factor and most
be avoided.

This ignores the fact that by removing the NTIA backstop we destabilize
the current system. It might have been possible to find a new balance
(not that the old worked that well given the amount of discontent that
existed prior to the CCWG process) by tweaking the system.  The early
work of the CCWG, however, showed that this was not enough.  So we
decided to bring back a notion that existed in the early ICANN design,
the idea of membership.  Membership has always been part of the kit that
was available to ICANN in the multistakeholder model.  An initial
experiment met with some issues and instead of fixing that then, they
threw the notion away without exploring possible tweaks to the system.
As a result we are living in ICANN 2.0, a system that was  imposed in a
top down manner and one that was never fully accepted by those at the
bottom.

Now, albeit in a very different configuration, the CCWG is proposing to
establish a community consensus based idea of membership. I believe that
this should be given a fair analysis before rejecting it.  It is also
important to remember that the NTIA requirements were not a prohibition
of new mechanisms or structures, but rather evidence that these
structure did not increase the current risk, or fact, of capture and
that they could be held to account.

The Board criticism is important to look at for arguments that show the
areas in which the CCWG plan either does not explain its protections
against capture and its accountability checks and balances or may have
gaps in these areas. If we cannot explain what we propose, or cannot
close the gaps, then it becomes time to consider variations on the model
or another model altogether. In my opinion, we are not there.

avri


---
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



--
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive 
InternetNZ

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz 
Skype: jordancarter

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


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


-- 

Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology 
mshears@cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987


Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com



_______________________________________________
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