Dear All, Avri? suggestion and Geg amendment are well compatible wuith what I prposed at LA . Let ius get ride of VOTING and go ahead with consensus recommendation( outcome for SOs and consensus advice from ACs, ALAC could opt with either of the two Regards Kavouss 2015-10-05 19:35 GMT+02:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>:
Yes.
Not much else to say. Keeps with the tradition of the bottom up multi-stakeholder model, eliminates some of the side issues that have contributed to derailing our effort, allows us the keep the legal certainty and statutory power of the SMM while modifying it to fit this communities cultural and operational norms.
Yes.
Thanks Avri - sometimes it takes a philosopher to lead a bunch of lawyers and engineers away from pessimism, conflict and darkness.
Best,
Ed
------------------------------ *From*: "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> *Sent*: Monday, October 5, 2015 3:51 PM *To*: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject*: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Is it reasonable to avoid new mechanisms?
Hi,
What about the idea of recasting the SM to work on a consensus model instead of voting?
The info we got from Sidley/Adler indicates that this should be possible. Then instead of working on votes we can work on Recommendations and Advice objections to gauge consensus (e.g. no more that 1 SO recommends against + 1 AC advises against)
Note: I personally accept that constant outreach, a place for anyone in an ACSO and open comment period in the 6 UN languages meets the condition for a viable global model of participation.
avri
On 05-Oct-15 10:31, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
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 <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
2015-10-05 15:38 GMT+02:00 Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 <tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: <http://www.internetnz.nz>www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
/A better world through a better Internet /
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
--
Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org> + 44 771 247 2987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%20247%202987>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
_______________________________________________ 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
--- 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