Our timetable -- some personal observations
Hi all I would like to put on record my personal observations regarding the schedule of our work for the past few months. I do so in an effort to be as transparent as possible about my own role in the process, and to offer some thoughts on the consequences of further delays at this point. First, I believe we have pulled together a credible Third Draft report which can be accepted as is by the SOs and ACs, and would pass the NTIA tests. So the fundamental quality of the work is not in question. Second, what will be vital (given the short timeframe for this Third Draft and the limited public comment) is that there is fulsome and non-truncated public comment on the Bylaws and other changes that will give effect to these proposals. That is where the "Every Word Has To Be Right" standard must be applied. For the current report, the intent must be clear - and that is the basis on which I have been happy to accept the truncated process for this phase. Third, the drivers. To me the following have helped leave me able to deal with the compressed timeframe: - pressure from senior ICANN staff and directors to "get it done" - and clear paintings, as recently as Dublin, of "horror" scenarios if the report isn't finished by mid-January. This has tended to be based on views about the U.S. political cycle. - pressure from the numbering and protocols communities, who want this done and dusted and wish the transition had already been done. - the desire generally to close the work out, given the slowly reducing levels of volunteer commitment evident over the past few months. So I have been able to live with that. Fourth, I want to note my own ongoing frustration with the way the ICANN Board has involved itself in this process: - non involvement in the first parts of the process - interventions in the second draft proposal consultation and, problematically, around the Los Angeles meeting that made it impossible for us to present a Third Draft Report to the Dublin meeting. - a new intervention now with further substantive changes proposed, some of which are fundamental to the Third Draft (esp. the human rights, voting thresholds, inspection rights and IANA budget) that cannot be incorporated without further delays to the process. - the astonishing change in tone about the timetable - from "THIS MUST BE DONE" to "we should take the time to get this right!". It seems to me the Board's conflict of interest in this process, which is inherent (the body being held to account is inserting itself into decisions about how that should happen), has been managed in a fashion that has made our work harder, that has called into question the ability to complete a workable proposal, and has caused unnecessary stress and friction both within the CCWG and with the other operational communities. That said: we are where we are. So for the next few weeks I offer this observation. If the substantive changes proposed by the Board on the items I noted above are agreed to by the CCWG, it will require: - diligent work to assure the quality of the proposals, including legal review - a re-presentation of the final proposal, along with explanation of why the changes have been made - a re-consideration of the final proposal by the chartering SOs and ACs. This will all take time, and in my view at least a month of time if not more. That is even if the outcome is not to agree with the Board's changes. (Personally I think a few of them are helpful, and that they should be judged on the merits - if we agree to take the time to do so.) ICANN agreeing to a slower timetable is one thing, but it does not change the fact that other actors do not wish to see more time taken. I cannot imagine numbers and protocols being happy about further time. (That is a deliberate understatement. I think they would be furious.) So in the end, the critical decision we face is whether to deal with substantive comment in a way that could lead to key things being changed in a manner that: - accepts fundamental changes and the change to the schedule involved - rejects fundamental changes, and takes the risk of the Board's comment it may oppose those changes coming true As usual, we are again in an invidious situation through no fault of our (the CCWG's) own. It is no surprise volunteer numbers are down. I would be interested in the views of other participants on the following: - do you think substantive changes such as those of the Board would require delays if adopted following the close of public comments? - do you feel comfortable with delay if required? best, Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *
On 12/16/2015 03:57 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
tests. So the fundamental quality of the work is not in question.
I regret to say that I am afraid it is.
be clear - and that is the basis on which I have been happy to accept the truncated process for this phase.
By 'truncate process' you mean the consistent, deliberate and largely successful attempts to subvert the Chartered Process.
Third, the drivers. To me the following have helped leave me able to deal with the compressed timeframe:
- pressure from senior ICANN staff and directors to "get it done" - and clear paintings, as recently as Dublin, of "horror" scenarios if the
I don't understand this statement. Firstly, the alleged pressure to 'get it done at all costs' does not appear to emanate from the Board. It comes from unstated and unnamed actors. I do not agree with the Board's bombshell tactics in Santa Monica. I do not agree with some of the Board's more recent fundamental objections, published on the 14th. But I submit, the Board would have done neither of these things if it was hell bent on "get 'er done" at all costs. Therefore I feel that's a misrepresentation. Furthermore, I fail to see how the (very real) pressure on the WG allegedly from the Board (doubtful, see above) can give you comfort. Irrespective of whence it originates, it is exactly this behaviour, plagiarised from the 1999 edition of the playbook entitled "How to Steal an Internet", that concerns me most.
report isn't finished by mid-January. This has tended to be based on views about the U.S. political cycle.
I am particularly concerned that we (that is to say ICANN and the community) are seen to be taking a United States domestic political position, and that is wholly inimincal and detrimental to ICANN's long term future. It's clear that a Democratic administration is going to be less skeptical of a privatization plan, since ICANN originated in a Clinton administration plan. However, there is a world of difference between recognizing this, and to be seen explicitly conducting ourselves in a way designed to present a future Republican administration with an irreversible fait accompli, because we just they would be hostile. Yet, I see this motivation expressed time and time again, both publicly on list postings, and privately. We have to create a system that will pass objective muster. We will have to deal with future United States administrations of all political hues, whether transition happens now or if the process continues into a Donald Trump or Ted Cruz presidency. Any new Government, reviewing a politicised ICANN seen to be explicitly supportive of the previous adminsitration will be in an much more precarious position than one which behaves neutrally and objectively. Even should ICANN be legally free of US government involvement (and I remain unelucidated regarding the actual statutory powers by which separation is intended to take place), the US will remain the host nation. It would be naive to believe that the USG will not take AT LEAST as much interest over ICANN's future behaviour as the Swiss Government has done with FIFA; it behooves us to not burn bridges and be able to deal with a Government of any political colour.
- a new intervention now with further substantive changes proposed, some of which are fundamental to the Third Draft (esp. the human rights, voting thresholds, inspection rights and IANA budget) that cannot be incorporated without further delays to the process.
Are you saying that you prefer no delay, to creating an ICANN that has no obligations to respect fundamental rights?
cannot imagine numbers and protocols being happy about further time. (That is a deliberate understatement. I think they would be furious.)
Personally, to borrow a phrase often used by a much more critical observer of the process, "I do not give a dead rat's fuzzy behind" how furious they get. It is not for them to interfere in how the names community works. I also note that it no longer the Board, but now the numbers and protocols people who are insisting we traduce the process. Who will it be next? Captain Hook? The Easter Bunny? I simply don't believe it. Numbers and protocols don't need ICANN. I think they will look with some bemusemnt on what we are up in the names part, but the fact is, their area is easy, and ours isn't.
- do you think substantive changes such as those of the Board would require delays if adopted following the close of public comments?
Jordan, this a clever formulation, but its designed to predicate the answer. In other words 'it begs the question' A better way of putting is, is "Should we do this right, or should we accept a defective proposal. Which do you prefer?"
-- 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
Hi all, Nigel: a couple of points in line below. On Wednesday, 16 December 2015, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
On 12/16/2015 03:57 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
tests. So the fundamental quality of the work is not in question.
I regret to say that I am afraid it is.
I don't agree, but I may have not been quite clear. More time and work will always lead to higher quality. But the current proposal works.
be clear - and that is the basis on which I have been happy to accept the truncated process for this phase.
By 'truncate process' you mean the consistent, deliberate and largely successful attempts to subvert the Chartered Process.
No: I don't agree the shortened comment period does any such thing.
Third, the drivers. To me the following have helped leave me able to deal with the compressed timeframe:
- pressure from senior ICANN staff and directors to "get it done" - and clear paintings, as recently as Dublin, of "horror" scenarios if the
I don't understand this statement.
Firstly, the alleged pressure to 'get it done at all costs' does not appear to emanate from the Board. It comes from unstated and unnamed actors.
If the Icann board allows its staff to argue for things it does not support, that tells an interesting story.
I do not agree with the Board's bombshell tactics in Santa Monica.
I do not agree with some of the Board's more recent fundamental objections, published on the 14th.
But I submit, the Board would have done neither of these things if it was hell bent on "get 'er done" at all costs.
Therefore I feel that's a misrepresentation.
As above.
Furthermore, I fail to see how the (very real) pressure on the WG allegedly from the Board (doubtful, see above) can give you comfort.
Where did I express comfort? The point of my email has been to signal in the clearest possible terms my *discomfort* with the pressure that has been applied. <snip>
- a new intervention now with further substantive changes proposed, some of which are fundamental to the Third Draft (esp. the human rights, voting thresholds, inspection rights and IANA budget) that cannot be incorporated without further delays to the process.
Are you saying that you prefer no delay, to creating an ICANN that has no obligations to respect fundamental rights?
I prefer sticking with the current proposa and no delay, to delay and weakening that commitment.
cannot imagine numbers and protocols being happy about further time. (That is a deliberate understatement. I think they would be furious.)
Personally, to borrow a phrase often used by a much more critical observer of the process, "I do not give a dead rat's fuzzy behind" how furious they get. It is not for them to interfere in how the names community works.
You are welcome to take that point of view, but since Icann accountability is tied up with the transition, and the transition affects all three communities, I think it is probably an unreasonable one for the ccwg as a whole to take. <snip>
Numbers and protocols don't need ICANN. I think they will look with some bemusemnt on what we are up in the names part, but the fact is, their area is easy, and ours isn't.
That's fine, but NTIA has very clearly told the other two communities that in fact they do need ICANN - that they won't accept a transition that splits the Iana functions into different operators.
- do you think substantive changes such as those of the Board would require delays if adopted following the close of public comments?
Jordan, this a clever formulation, but its designed to predicate the answer. In other words 'it begs the question'
No, Nigel, it does not, and it is not better put by your version - which certainly does beg the question. On my view the answer to the question I posed above is 'yes'.
A better way of putting is, is "Should we do this right, or should we accept a defective proposal. Which do you prefer?"
I don't believe the proposal is defective. I believe it would become worse if some of the feedback the board has offered was incorporated. Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
Hi Jordan I think the question about delay is the choice between: - Making significant changes based on the board comments and watering down major accountability mechanisms - this will cause delay in any case. - Rejecting board's comments in order to save some of the recommendation we made (or go on with the current proposal) and face the risk of delay if the board will bring the issue of GPI, etc. Basically, "lesser evil" choice. I rather prefer the second option since it looks to me that in any case there is no other choice but delay (or is there?). I would rather resist the idea of making the proposal worse by incorporating all the feedback given by the board. Best regards Tanya On 16/12/15 09:22, Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all, Nigel: a couple of points in line below.
On Wednesday, 16 December 2015, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
On 12/16/2015 03:57 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
> tests. So the fundamental quality of the work is not in question.
I regret to say that I am afraid it is.
I don't agree, but I may have not been quite clear. More time and work will always lead to higher quality. But the current proposal works.
>
> be clear - and that is the basis on which I have been happy to accept > the truncated process for this phase.
By 'truncate process' you mean the consistent, deliberate and largely successful attempts to subvert the Chartered Process.
No: I don't agree the shortened comment period does any such thing.
> > Third, the drivers. To me the following have helped leave me able to > deal with the compressed timeframe: > > - pressure from senior ICANN staff and directors to "get it done" - and > clear paintings, as recently as Dublin, of "horror" scenarios if the I don't understand this statement.
Firstly, the alleged pressure to 'get it done at all costs' does not appear to emanate from the Board. It comes from unstated and unnamed actors.
If the Icann board allows its staff to argue for things it does not support, that tells an interesting story.
I do not agree with the Board's bombshell tactics in Santa Monica.
I do not agree with some of the Board's more recent fundamental objections, published on the 14th.
But I submit, the Board would have done neither of these things if it was hell bent on "get 'er done" at all costs.
Therefore I feel that's a misrepresentation.
As above.
Furthermore, I fail to see how the (very real) pressure on the WG allegedly from the Board (doubtful, see above) can give you comfort.
Where did I express comfort? The point of my email has been to signal in the clearest possible terms my *discomfort* with the pressure that has been applied.
<snip>
> - a new intervention now with further substantive changes proposed, some > of which are fundamental to the Third Draft (esp. the human rights, > voting thresholds, inspection rights and IANA budget) that cannot be > incorporated without further delays to the process.
Are you saying that you prefer no delay, to creating an ICANN that has no obligations to respect fundamental rights?
I prefer sticking with the current proposa and no delay, to delay and weakening that commitment.
> cannot imagine numbers and protocols being happy about further time. > (That is a deliberate understatement. I think they would be furious.) >
Personally, to borrow a phrase often used by a much more critical observer of the process, "I do not give a dead rat's fuzzy behind" how furious they get. It is not for them to interfere in how the names community works.
You are welcome to take that point of view, but since Icann accountability is tied up with the transition, and the transition affects all three communities, I think it is probably an unreasonable one for the ccwg as a whole to take.
<snip>
Numbers and protocols don't need ICANN. I think they will look with some bemusemnt on what we are up in the names part, but the fact is, their area is easy, and ours isn't.
That's fine, but NTIA has very clearly told the other two communities that in fact they do need ICANN - that they won't accept a transition that splits the Iana functions into different operators.
> - do you think substantive changes such as those of the Board would > require delays if adopted following the close of public comments? >
Jordan, this a clever formulation, but its designed to predicate the answer. In other words 'it begs the question'
No, Nigel, it does not, and it is not better put by your version - which certainly does beg the question.
On my view the answer to the question I posed above is 'yes'.
A better way of putting is, is "Should we do this right, or should we accept a defective proposal. Which do you prefer?"
I don't believe the proposal is defective. I believe it would become worse if some of the feedback the board has offered was incorporated.
Jordan
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Jordan, I agree with Tatiana. I also share your frustration with the Board's involvement in this entire process. The process hit a roadblock last time (when the MEM model was proposed instead of CMSM), which led to delays when changes were made because of Board comments. Some of the substantive comments proposed this time round will further dilute the accountability proposals that this group has (painstakingly) arrived on. During yesterday's call, it was stated that the Board's comments will be handled the same way as comments received from the community. If so, shouldn't the Board proposals be analysed and discussed along with other public comments at the end of the comment period? Any significant changes made then should reflect the general trend of comments, and not just comments from one stakeholder. Best, Aarti Aarti Bhavana | Research Fellow Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 965-464-6846 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.ccgtlr.org <http://www.ccgdelhi.org/> | On 16 December 2015 at 14:17, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina@mpicc.de> wrote:
Hi Jordan
I think the question about delay is the choice between: - Making significant changes based on the board comments and watering down major accountability mechanisms - this will cause delay in any case. - Rejecting board's comments in order to save some of the recommendation we made (or go on with the current proposal) and face the risk of delay if the board will bring the issue of GPI, etc. Basically, "lesser evil" choice. I rather prefer the second option since it looks to me that in any case there is no other choice but delay (or is there?). I would rather resist the idea of making the proposal worse by incorporating all the feedback given by the board.
Best regards Tanya
On 16/12/15 09:22, Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all, Nigel: a couple of points in line below.
On Wednesday, 16 December 2015, Nigel Roberts < <nigel@channelisles.net> nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
On 12/16/2015 03:57 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
tests. So the fundamental quality of the work is not in question.
I regret to say that I am afraid it is.
I don't agree, but I may have not been quite clear. More time and work will always lead to higher quality. But the current proposal works.
be clear - and that is the basis on which I have been happy to accept the truncated process for this phase.
By 'truncate process' you mean the consistent, deliberate and largely successful attempts to subvert the Chartered Process.
No: I don't agree the shortened comment period does any such thing.
Third, the drivers. To me the following have helped leave me able to deal with the compressed timeframe:
- pressure from senior ICANN staff and directors to "get it done" - and clear paintings, as recently as Dublin, of "horror" scenarios if the
I don't understand this statement.
Firstly, the alleged pressure to 'get it done at all costs' does not appear to emanate from the Board. It comes from unstated and unnamed actors.
If the Icann board allows its staff to argue for things it does not support, that tells an interesting story.
I do not agree with the Board's bombshell tactics in Santa Monica.
I do not agree with some of the Board's more recent fundamental objections, published on the 14th.
But I submit, the Board would have done neither of these things if it was hell bent on "get 'er done" at all costs.
Therefore I feel that's a misrepresentation.
As above.
Furthermore, I fail to see how the (very real) pressure on the WG allegedly from the Board (doubtful, see above) can give you comfort.
Where did I express comfort? The point of my email has been to signal in the clearest possible terms my *discomfort* with the pressure that has been applied.
<snip>
- a new intervention now with further substantive changes proposed, some of which are fundamental to the Third Draft (esp. the human rights, voting thresholds, inspection rights and IANA budget) that cannot be incorporated without further delays to the process.
Are you saying that you prefer no delay, to creating an ICANN that has no obligations to respect fundamental rights?
I prefer sticking with the current proposa and no delay, to delay and weakening that commitment.
cannot imagine numbers and protocols being happy about further time. (That is a deliberate understatement. I think they would be furious.)
Personally, to borrow a phrase often used by a much more critical observer of the process, "I do not give a dead rat's fuzzy behind" how furious they get. It is not for them to interfere in how the names community works.
You are welcome to take that point of view, but since Icann accountability is tied up with the transition, and the transition affects all three communities, I think it is probably an unreasonable one for the ccwg as a whole to take.
<snip>
Numbers and protocols don't need ICANN. I think they will look with some bemusemnt on what we are up in the names part, but the fact is, their area is easy, and ours isn't.
That's fine, but NTIA has very clearly told the other two communities that in fact they do need ICANN - that they won't accept a transition that splits the Iana functions into different operators.
- do you think substantive changes such as those of the Board would require delays if adopted following the close of public comments?
Jordan, this a clever formulation, but its designed to predicate the answer. In other words 'it begs the question'
No, Nigel, it does not, and it is not better put by your version - which certainly does beg the question.
On my view the answer to the question I posed above is 'yes'.
A better way of putting is, is "Should we do this right, or should we accept a defective proposal. Which do you prefer?"
I don't believe the proposal is defective. I believe it would become worse if some of the feedback the board has offered was incorporated.
Jordan
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://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
On 16/12/2015 03:57, Jordan Carter wrote:
It seems to me the Board's conflict of interest in this process, which is inherent (the body being held to account is inserting itself into decisions about how that should happen),
Indeed, we should remember this conflict, when considering the Board's input.
If the substantive changes proposed by the Board on the items I noted above are agreed to by the CCWG, it will require:
- diligent work to assure the quality of the proposals, including legal review - a re-presentation of the final proposal, along with explanation of why the changes have been made - a re-consideration of the final proposal by the chartering SOs and ACs.
The Board also proposes to reject and entirely rewrite our proposal on the Mission text. It rejects the compromise we put forward on the prohibition on regulating web site content (etc), a compromise we carefully constructed, over many weeks of intense negotiation balancing diverse interests. Needless to say, for many of us the Board's proposal is simply unacceptable, and should be dropped. But if we do try to work to find a new formulation, that will likely take many weeks within CCWG before we could get a new draft on which to consult.
As usual, we are again in an invidious situation through no fault of our (the CCWG's) own. It is no surprise volunteer numbers are down.
I would be interested in the views of other participants on the following:
- do you think substantive changes such as those of the Board would require delays if adopted following the close of public comments?
- do you feel comfortable with delay if required?
Actually, I think we have a larger problem even than that. The public comment round on the Third Draft was designed to avoid receiving significant public comment that would lead to substantial changes. - The report has been presented as our final report. - The comment period was highly truncated, a mere (20?) days, and scheduled in the run-up to the holiday season. - The Chairs have let it be known that comment is principally sought from the Chartering Organisations rather than the general public. -The Chairs have also stressed most clearly that they are soliciting support for the proposal, not ideas for further improvement, and that the question on the table is not "Do you like this recommendation?" or "Are there aspects of this recommendation that you would want changed?" but "Will you raise a fundamental objection to transition if this recommendation proceeds?". - Most particularly, by sending the report to the Chartering Organisations while public comment is still open, the Chairs have sent the clearest possible signal that the time for further improvements is over. Frankly, stated like this it can look like an appalling attempt to exclude public input and impose an outcome. But there is a legitimate justification: our work must eventually conclude, and there comes a point when, having done our best, anything more is worse. So the above process would be justified if the Chairs have already concluded that this Third Draft Report is the best report of which CCWG is capable; that the length and intensity of our work cannot be maintained any longer, and so continuing negotiations would amount to letting a dwindling band of volunteers capture the CCWG to impose their own viewpoint. I think sooner or later we must reach that point, and if the Chairs say that we reached it with publication of the Third Draft Report I will accept their judgement. If that is where we are, then the correct approach to the Board's substantial disagreements with core aspects of our proposal is simply to proceed on our current path: we convey our report to the Chartering Organisations and, with their support, deliver it to the Board as the final, considered community view. If the Board chooses to reject the community view, that's on them. The Board may back down, and support our proposal. And it may not, in which case it will be up to the NTIA to decide whether it agrees with us (and demands cooperaion from a recalcitrant Board) or with the Board (and so concludes that this community is not sufficient mature to be able to accept transition). On the other hand, if we have not reached "the end of the line", then we must continue our work not only on the Board's input but on that of others too. If we simply adopt the Board recommendations unthinkingly, subordinating our judgement to theirs, we will have essentially been captured by the Board, and handed them control of the process; if that happens, I would oppose transition for that reason alone: this community would then have proven itself to have insufficient willpower to hold the Board to account, and so would be in my view too immature to accept transition. If instead we take up any of several key areas where the Board has proposed major changes for detailed consideration, that will take time to negotiate amongst ourselves, and will likely still result in disagreement with the Board view in some cases. We will also have to consider other input, not just the Board's, and given how we've run this public comment round, we may have to re-open it in January to attract that input. We will also have to be prepared to take comments from the public on yet another major set of changes. That means having a proper public comment period (that runs for 60 days), with a genuine attempt to attract rather than avoid participation. In that comment round, one of the key questions will be "Do you think this recommendation in the Fourth Draft Report is an improvement on its counterpart in the Third, or a retrograde step?". Given that the current process is still running I cannot see any possibility of agreeing a Fourth Draft Report before the end of January, most likely mid-February. Add 60 days for comment and a couple of weeks to collate and analyse comment, we'd be looking at reaching a conclusion in late May. Even if the comment period were pulled back to 30 days, we're still talking end April. I think the Board has put the Chairs in an invidious position. To summarise their options as I see them: i) declare that we've reached the end of the line, for better or for worse, and that the Third Draft Report remains final. This may be the best option, but if it leads to transition failure they will likely be scapegoated by the Board (who would actually deserve the blame). ii) bounce CCWG into accepting the core of the Board's latest demands by ignoring those that voice disagreement. This will utterly discredit the CCWG process, and may lead to many individual stakeholders (but perhaps not Chartering Organisations) directly opposing transition on this basis. This route may be the path of least resistance for the Chairs, but it will cause lasting damage to ICANN and undermine the credibility of multistakeholderism more generally, most particularly amongst multistakholderism's traditional cheerleaders. iii) re-open substantive work to produce a Fourth Draft Report, putting it on a timeline for public review that won't conclude until late-spring/early-summer, and will *still* risk the Board pulling the same stunt yet again. The displeasure of the numbers and protocols community leaders will be fearsome. I don't know what NTIA would think about being told we're pushing back the deadline by 4-6 months and will miss the Congressional calendar window, but I doubt they'll be happy either. Does anyone see another way out of this I have missed? Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
I fully agree with Malcom here. And think personally that yes we have reached that point. Thank you Malcom for summarising the situation in a very similar light to my own personal views. -James On 16/12/2015, 10:22 a.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Malcolm Hutty" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
I think sooner or later we must reach that point, and if the Chairs say that we reached it with publication of the Third Draft Report I will accept their judgement.
If that is where we are, then the correct approach to the Board's substantial disagreements with core aspects of our proposal is simply to proceed on our current path: we convey our report to the Chartering Organisations and, with their support, deliver it to the Board as the final, considered community view. If the Board chooses to reject the community view, that's on them. The Board may back down, and support our proposal. And it may not, in which case it will be up to the NTIA to decide whether it agrees with us (and demands cooperaion from a recalcitrant Board) or with the Board (and so concludes that this community is not sufficient mature to be able to accept transition).
Malcolm is, of course, completely correct. The Board's last minute effort to play the GPI card is an effort to cow the Co-Chairs into adopting their views as a way of avoiding further delay. As Malcolm says, however, if the CCWG accedes to those demands it risks losing the support of many individuals and perhaps even some chartering organizations. My own recommendation is that the Chartering Organizations withhold their support pending not only close of the public comment period but also a determination by the Co-Chairs as to how they intend to proceed. If the Co-Chairs choose to modify the Third Proposal in response to the Board and if they do so without futher engagement and public comment that process foul, by itself, would be grounds for the Chartering Organizations to reject the proposal -- and I would strongly advocate that they do so. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm@linx.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 5:22 AM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Our timetable -- some personal observations On 16/12/2015 03:57, Jordan Carter wrote:
It seems to me the Board's conflict of interest in this process, which is inherent (the body being held to account is inserting itself into decisions about how that should happen),
Indeed, we should remember this conflict, when considering the Board's input.
If the substantive changes proposed by the Board on the items I noted above are agreed to by the CCWG, it will require:
- diligent work to assure the quality of the proposals, including legal review - a re-presentation of the final proposal, along with explanation of why the changes have been made - a re-consideration of the final proposal by the chartering SOs and ACs.
The Board also proposes to reject and entirely rewrite our proposal on the Mission text. It rejects the compromise we put forward on the prohibition on regulating web site content (etc), a compromise we carefully constructed, over many weeks of intense negotiation balancing diverse interests. Needless to say, for many of us the Board's proposal is simply unacceptable, and should be dropped. But if we do try to work to find a new formulation, that will likely take many weeks within CCWG before we could get a new draft on which to consult.
As usual, we are again in an invidious situation through no fault of our (the CCWG's) own. It is no surprise volunteer numbers are down.
I would be interested in the views of other participants on the following:
- do you think substantive changes such as those of the Board would require delays if adopted following the close of public comments?
- do you feel comfortable with delay if required?
Actually, I think we have a larger problem even than that. The public comment round on the Third Draft was designed to avoid receiving significant public comment that would lead to substantial changes. - The report has been presented as our final report. - The comment period was highly truncated, a mere (20?) days, and scheduled in the run-up to the holiday season. - The Chairs have let it be known that comment is principally sought from the Chartering Organisations rather than the general public. -The Chairs have also stressed most clearly that they are soliciting support for the proposal, not ideas for further improvement, and that the question on the table is not "Do you like this recommendation?" or "Are there aspects of this recommendation that you would want changed?" but "Will you raise a fundamental objection to transition if this recommendation proceeds?". - Most particularly, by sending the report to the Chartering Organisations while public comment is still open, the Chairs have sent the clearest possible signal that the time for further improvements is over. Frankly, stated like this it can look like an appalling attempt to exclude public input and impose an outcome. But there is a legitimate justification: our work must eventually conclude, and there comes a point when, having done our best, anything more is worse. So the above process would be justified if the Chairs have already concluded that this Third Draft Report is the best report of which CCWG is capable; that the length and intensity of our work cannot be maintained any longer, and so continuing negotiations would amount to letting a dwindling band of volunteers capture the CCWG to impose their own viewpoint. I think sooner or later we must reach that point, and if the Chairs say that we reached it with publication of the Third Draft Report I will accept their judgement. If that is where we are, then the correct approach to the Board's substantial disagreements with core aspects of our proposal is simply to proceed on our current path: we convey our report to the Chartering Organisations and, with their support, deliver it to the Board as the final, considered community view. If the Board chooses to reject the community view, that's on them. The Board may back down, and support our proposal. And it may not, in which case it will be up to the NTIA to decide whether it agrees with us (and demands cooperaion from a recalcitrant Board) or with the Board (and so concludes that this community is not sufficient mature to be able to accept transition). On the other hand, if we have not reached "the end of the line", then we must continue our work not only on the Board's input but on that of others too. If we simply adopt the Board recommendations unthinkingly, subordinating our judgement to theirs, we will have essentially been captured by the Board, and handed them control of the process; if that happens, I would oppose transition for that reason alone: this community would then have proven itself to have insufficient willpower to hold the Board to account, and so would be in my view too immature to accept transition. If instead we take up any of several key areas where the Board has proposed major changes for detailed consideration, that will take time to negotiate amongst ourselves, and will likely still result in disagreement with the Board view in some cases. We will also have to consider other input, not just the Board's, and given how we've run this public comment round, we may have to re-open it in January to attract that input. We will also have to be prepared to take comments from the public on yet another major set of changes. That means having a proper public comment period (that runs for 60 days), with a genuine attempt to attract rather than avoid participation. In that comment round, one of the key questions will be "Do you think this recommendation in the Fourth Draft Report is an improvement on its counterpart in the Third, or a retrograde step?". Given that the current process is still running I cannot see any possibility of agreeing a Fourth Draft Report before the end of January, most likely mid-February. Add 60 days for comment and a couple of weeks to collate and analyse comment, we'd be looking at reaching a conclusion in late May. Even if the comment period were pulled back to 30 days, we're still talking end April. I think the Board has put the Chairs in an invidious position. To summarise their options as I see them: i) declare that we've reached the end of the line, for better or for worse, and that the Third Draft Report remains final. This may be the best option, but if it leads to transition failure they will likely be scapegoated by the Board (who would actually deserve the blame). ii) bounce CCWG into accepting the core of the Board's latest demands by ignoring those that voice disagreement. This will utterly discredit the CCWG process, and may lead to many individual stakeholders (but perhaps not Chartering Organisations) directly opposing transition on this basis. This route may be the path of least resistance for the Chairs, but it will cause lasting damage to ICANN and undermine the credibility of multistakeholderism more generally, most particularly amongst multistakholderism's traditional cheerleaders. iii) re-open substantive work to produce a Fourth Draft Report, putting it on a timeline for public review that won't conclude until late-spring/early-summer, and will *still* risk the Board pulling the same stunt yet again. The displeasure of the numbers and protocols community leaders will be fearsome. I don't know what NTIA would think about being told we're pushing back the deadline by 4-6 months and will miss the Congressional calendar window, but I doubt they'll be happy either. Does anyone see another way out of this I have missed? Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi all, Paul and Malcolm, I think you make sensible points. On Malcolm's options, my view is that i) (Third Draft is it) or a variant of iii) (Fourth Draft or at least Supplemental) are viable. Option ii) is utterly beyond the realm of what would be reasonable or acceptable. I still think it would be helpful for SOs and ACs to offer their views on the Recommendations by the requested deadline, even if there is a view that more work will later need to be done. After all, it would not be helpful to the CCWG to have to do any further work it might decide to do (if it doesn't choose Malcolm's Option i)) without views from the SOs and ACs to take into account, along with public comments such as that from the Board. If we are going to do more work, we should do it with a full set of views represented by the various relevant groups. best Jordan On 17 December 2015 at 08:41, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Malcolm is, of course, completely correct. The Board's last minute effort to play the GPI card is an effort to cow the Co-Chairs into adopting their views as a way of avoiding further delay. As Malcolm says, however, if the CCWG accedes to those demands it risks losing the support of many individuals and perhaps even some chartering organizations.
My own recommendation is that the Chartering Organizations withhold their support pending not only close of the public comment period but also a determination by the Co-Chairs as to how they intend to proceed. If the Co-Chairs choose to modify the Third Proposal in response to the Board and if they do so without futher engagement and public comment that process foul, by itself, would be grounds for the Chartering Organizations to reject the proposal -- and I would strongly advocate that they do so.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm@linx.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 5:22 AM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Our timetable -- some personal observations
On 16/12/2015 03:57, Jordan Carter wrote:
It seems to me the Board's conflict of interest in this process, which is inherent (the body being held to account is inserting itself into decisions about how that should happen),
Indeed, we should remember this conflict, when considering the Board's input.
If the substantive changes proposed by the Board on the items I noted above are agreed to by the CCWG, it will require:
- diligent work to assure the quality of the proposals, including legal review - a re-presentation of the final proposal, along with explanation of why the changes have been made - a re-consideration of the final proposal by the chartering SOs and ACs.
The Board also proposes to reject and entirely rewrite our proposal on the Mission text. It rejects the compromise we put forward on the prohibition on regulating web site content (etc), a compromise we carefully constructed, over many weeks of intense negotiation balancing diverse interests.
Needless to say, for many of us the Board's proposal is simply unacceptable, and should be dropped. But if we do try to work to find a new formulation, that will likely take many weeks within CCWG before we could get a new draft on which to consult.
As usual, we are again in an invidious situation through no fault of our (the CCWG's) own. It is no surprise volunteer numbers are down.
I would be interested in the views of other participants on the following:
- do you think substantive changes such as those of the Board would require delays if adopted following the close of public comments?
- do you feel comfortable with delay if required?
Actually, I think we have a larger problem even than that.
The public comment round on the Third Draft was designed to avoid receiving significant public comment that would lead to substantial changes. - The report has been presented as our final report. - The comment period was highly truncated, a mere (20?) days, and scheduled in the run-up to the holiday season. - The Chairs have let it be known that comment is principally sought from the Chartering Organisations rather than the general public. -The Chairs have also stressed most clearly that they are soliciting support for the proposal, not ideas for further improvement, and that the question on the table is not "Do you like this recommendation?" or "Are there aspects of this recommendation that you would want changed?" but "Will you raise a fundamental objection to transition if this recommendation proceeds?". - Most particularly, by sending the report to the Chartering Organisations while public comment is still open, the Chairs have sent the clearest possible signal that the time for further improvements is over.
Frankly, stated like this it can look like an appalling attempt to exclude public input and impose an outcome. But there is a legitimate justification: our work must eventually conclude, and there comes a point when, having done our best, anything more is worse. So the above process would be justified if the Chairs have already concluded that this Third Draft Report is the best report of which CCWG is capable; that the length and intensity of our work cannot be maintained any longer, and so continuing negotiations would amount to letting a dwindling band of volunteers capture the CCWG to impose their own viewpoint.
I think sooner or later we must reach that point, and if the Chairs say that we reached it with publication of the Third Draft Report I will accept their judgement.
If that is where we are, then the correct approach to the Board's substantial disagreements with core aspects of our proposal is simply to proceed on our current path: we convey our report to the Chartering Organisations and, with their support, deliver it to the Board as the final, considered community view. If the Board chooses to reject the community view, that's on them. The Board may back down, and support our proposal. And it may not, in which case it will be up to the NTIA to decide whether it agrees with us (and demands cooperaion from a recalcitrant Board) or with the Board (and so concludes that this community is not sufficient mature to be able to accept transition).
On the other hand, if we have not reached "the end of the line", then we must continue our work not only on the Board's input but on that of others too.
If we simply adopt the Board recommendations unthinkingly, subordinating our judgement to theirs, we will have essentially been captured by the Board, and handed them control of the process; if that happens, I would oppose transition for that reason alone: this community would then have proven itself to have insufficient willpower to hold the Board to account, and so would be in my view too immature to accept transition.
If instead we take up any of several key areas where the Board has proposed major changes for detailed consideration, that will take time to negotiate amongst ourselves, and will likely still result in disagreement with the Board view in some cases. We will also have to consider other input, not just the Board's, and given how we've run this public comment round, we may have to re-open it in January to attract that input. We will also have to be prepared to take comments from the public on yet another major set of changes. That means having a proper public comment period (that runs for 60 days), with a genuine attempt to attract rather than avoid participation. In that comment round, one of the key questions will be "Do you think this recommendation in the Fourth Draft Report is an improvement on its counterpart in the Third, or a retrograde step?".
Given that the current process is still running I cannot see any possibility of agreeing a Fourth Draft Report before the end of January, most likely mid-February. Add 60 days for comment and a couple of weeks to collate and analyse comment, we'd be looking at reaching a conclusion in late May. Even if the comment period were pulled back to 30 days, we're still talking end April.
I think the Board has put the Chairs in an invidious position. To summarise their options as I see them:
i) declare that we've reached the end of the line, for better or for worse, and that the Third Draft Report remains final. This may be the best option, but if it leads to transition failure they will likely be scapegoated by the Board (who would actually deserve the blame).
ii) bounce CCWG into accepting the core of the Board's latest demands by ignoring those that voice disagreement. This will utterly discredit the CCWG process, and may lead to many individual stakeholders (but perhaps not Chartering Organisations) directly opposing transition on this basis. This route may be the path of least resistance for the Chairs, but it will cause lasting damage to ICANN and undermine the credibility of multistakeholderism more generally, most particularly amongst multistakholderism's traditional cheerleaders.
iii) re-open substantive work to produce a Fourth Draft Report, putting it on a timeline for public review that won't conclude until late-spring/early-summer, and will *still* risk the Board pulling the same stunt yet again. The displeasure of the numbers and protocols community leaders will be fearsome. I don't know what NTIA would think about being told we're pushing back the deadline by 4-6 months and will miss the Congressional calendar window, but I doubt they'll be happy either.
Does anyone see another way out of this I have missed?
Malcolm.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ 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 Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *
I think that something between (i) and (iii) (but bearing no relationship to (ii)) is another option. I think we need to take into account significant ("red flag"/"red line") issues that come from the SOACs and from the public comment process (including those from the Board. But we need to deal with them in a somewhat different manner. - If there are issues that seem significantly likely to cause one or more SOACs to reject a recommendation, those need to be dealt with (although "one man's meat is another man's poison" -- i.e., a solution to avoid rejection by one SOAC could bring about potential rejection by another SOAC). - If a SOAC or comment points out a way in which our proposal is "broken" (won't work the way we think it would, unintended consequences, reasonable but not previously contemplated scenarios), these need to be dealt with. These need to be distinguished from "implementation level" issues, which we should not deal with now. The flaw needs to be in the root, not the branch, so to speak. - Public comments that merely advocate different choices should be resisted. We have made many choices throughout this process. If we still have a consensus behind these choices and they don't fall into one of the two categories above, we should stick with these choices. We can't start moving the furniture around at this point. [However, we could go overboard in declaring the proposal sacrosanct, causing us to turn a blind eye to flaws we don't want to acknowledge. We want to be firm, but not rigid.] I think this would result in a very discriminating and surgical application of "fixes" over a short period of time (hopefully, the time allotted before the January SOAC final approval, or some very modest slippage from there). As such, it is a middle ground between (i) we're done and (iii) another full ride on the CCWG roller coaster. Greg On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all,
Paul and Malcolm, I think you make sensible points.
On Malcolm's options, my view is that i) (Third Draft is it) or a variant of iii) (Fourth Draft or at least Supplemental) are viable.
Option ii) is utterly beyond the realm of what would be reasonable or acceptable.
I still think it would be helpful for SOs and ACs to offer their views on the Recommendations by the requested deadline, even if there is a view that more work will later need to be done.
After all, it would not be helpful to the CCWG to have to do any further work it might decide to do (if it doesn't choose Malcolm's Option i)) without views from the SOs and ACs to take into account, along with public comments such as that from the Board. If we are going to do more work, we should do it with a full set of views represented by the various relevant groups.
best Jordan
On 17 December 2015 at 08:41, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Malcolm is, of course, completely correct. The Board's last minute effort to play the GPI card is an effort to cow the Co-Chairs into adopting their views as a way of avoiding further delay. As Malcolm says, however, if the CCWG accedes to those demands it risks losing the support of many individuals and perhaps even some chartering organizations.
My own recommendation is that the Chartering Organizations withhold their support pending not only close of the public comment period but also a determination by the Co-Chairs as to how they intend to proceed. If the Co-Chairs choose to modify the Third Proposal in response to the Board and if they do so without futher engagement and public comment that process foul, by itself, would be grounds for the Chartering Organizations to reject the proposal -- and I would strongly advocate that they do so.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm@linx.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 5:22 AM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Our timetable -- some personal observations
On 16/12/2015 03:57, Jordan Carter wrote:
It seems to me the Board's conflict of interest in this process, which is inherent (the body being held to account is inserting itself into decisions about how that should happen),
Indeed, we should remember this conflict, when considering the Board's input.
If the substantive changes proposed by the Board on the items I noted above are agreed to by the CCWG, it will require:
- diligent work to assure the quality of the proposals, including legal review - a re-presentation of the final proposal, along with explanation of why the changes have been made - a re-consideration of the final proposal by the chartering SOs and
ACs.
The Board also proposes to reject and entirely rewrite our proposal on the Mission text. It rejects the compromise we put forward on the prohibition on regulating web site content (etc), a compromise we carefully constructed, over many weeks of intense negotiation balancing diverse interests.
Needless to say, for many of us the Board's proposal is simply unacceptable, and should be dropped. But if we do try to work to find a new formulation, that will likely take many weeks within CCWG before we could get a new draft on which to consult.
As usual, we are again in an invidious situation through no fault of our (the CCWG's) own. It is no surprise volunteer numbers are down.
I would be interested in the views of other participants on the following:
- do you think substantive changes such as those of the Board would require delays if adopted following the close of public comments?
- do you feel comfortable with delay if required?
Actually, I think we have a larger problem even than that.
The public comment round on the Third Draft was designed to avoid receiving significant public comment that would lead to substantial changes. - The report has been presented as our final report. - The comment period was highly truncated, a mere (20?) days, and scheduled in the run-up to the holiday season. - The Chairs have let it be known that comment is principally sought from the Chartering Organisations rather than the general public. -The Chairs have also stressed most clearly that they are soliciting support for the proposal, not ideas for further improvement, and that the question on the table is not "Do you like this recommendation?" or "Are there aspects of this recommendation that you would want changed?" but "Will you raise a fundamental objection to transition if this recommendation proceeds?". - Most particularly, by sending the report to the Chartering Organisations while public comment is still open, the Chairs have sent the clearest possible signal that the time for further improvements is over.
Frankly, stated like this it can look like an appalling attempt to exclude public input and impose an outcome. But there is a legitimate justification: our work must eventually conclude, and there comes a point when, having done our best, anything more is worse. So the above process would be justified if the Chairs have already concluded that this Third Draft Report is the best report of which CCWG is capable; that the length and intensity of our work cannot be maintained any longer, and so continuing negotiations would amount to letting a dwindling band of volunteers capture the CCWG to impose their own viewpoint.
I think sooner or later we must reach that point, and if the Chairs say that we reached it with publication of the Third Draft Report I will accept their judgement.
If that is where we are, then the correct approach to the Board's substantial disagreements with core aspects of our proposal is simply to proceed on our current path: we convey our report to the Chartering Organisations and, with their support, deliver it to the Board as the final, considered community view. If the Board chooses to reject the community view, that's on them. The Board may back down, and support our proposal. And it may not, in which case it will be up to the NTIA to decide whether it agrees with us (and demands cooperaion from a recalcitrant Board) or with the Board (and so concludes that this community is not sufficient mature to be able to accept transition).
On the other hand, if we have not reached "the end of the line", then we must continue our work not only on the Board's input but on that of others too.
If we simply adopt the Board recommendations unthinkingly, subordinating our judgement to theirs, we will have essentially been captured by the Board, and handed them control of the process; if that happens, I would oppose transition for that reason alone: this community would then have proven itself to have insufficient willpower to hold the Board to account, and so would be in my view too immature to accept transition.
If instead we take up any of several key areas where the Board has proposed major changes for detailed consideration, that will take time to negotiate amongst ourselves, and will likely still result in disagreement with the Board view in some cases. We will also have to consider other input, not just the Board's, and given how we've run this public comment round, we may have to re-open it in January to attract that input. We will also have to be prepared to take comments from the public on yet another major set of changes. That means having a proper public comment period (that runs for 60 days), with a genuine attempt to attract rather than avoid participation. In that comment round, one of the key questions will be "Do you think this recommendation in the Fourth Draft Report is an improvement on its counterpart in the Third, or a retrograde step?".
Given that the current process is still running I cannot see any possibility of agreeing a Fourth Draft Report before the end of January, most likely mid-February. Add 60 days for comment and a couple of weeks to collate and analyse comment, we'd be looking at reaching a conclusion in late May. Even if the comment period were pulled back to 30 days, we're still talking end April.
I think the Board has put the Chairs in an invidious position. To summarise their options as I see them:
i) declare that we've reached the end of the line, for better or for worse, and that the Third Draft Report remains final. This may be the best option, but if it leads to transition failure they will likely be scapegoated by the Board (who would actually deserve the blame).
ii) bounce CCWG into accepting the core of the Board's latest demands by ignoring those that voice disagreement. This will utterly discredit the CCWG process, and may lead to many individual stakeholders (but perhaps not Chartering Organisations) directly opposing transition on this basis. This route may be the path of least resistance for the Chairs, but it will cause lasting damage to ICANN and undermine the credibility of multistakeholderism more generally, most particularly amongst multistakholderism's traditional cheerleaders.
iii) re-open substantive work to produce a Fourth Draft Report, putting it on a timeline for public review that won't conclude until late-spring/early-summer, and will *still* risk the Board pulling the same stunt yet again. The displeasure of the numbers and protocols community leaders will be fearsome. I don't know what NTIA would think about being told we're pushing back the deadline by 4-6 months and will miss the Congressional calendar window, but I doubt they'll be happy either.
Does anyone see another way out of this I have missed?
Malcolm.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ 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 Web: 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
Since when is this a choice of the Co-CHairs, instead of the whole CCWG? Rethorical question of course. The Charter is clear on how this works, thre can be several rounds if the Board disagrees with a 2/3. el On 2015-12-17 05:34 , Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all,
Paul and Malcolm, I think you make sensible points.
On Malcolm's options, my view is that i) (Third Draft is it) or a variant of iii) (Fourth Draft or at least Supplemental) are viable.
Option ii) is utterly beyond the realm of what would be reasonable or acceptable.
I still think it would be helpful for SOs and ACs to offer their views on the Recommendations by the requested deadline, even if there is a view that more work will later need to be done.
After all, it would not be helpful to the CCWG to have to do any further work it might decide to do (if it doesn't choose Malcolm's Option i)) without views from the SOs and ACs to take into account, along with public comments such as that from the Board. If we are going to do more work, we should do it with a full set of views represented by the various relevant groups.
best Jordan
On 17 December 2015 at 08:41, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
Malcolm is, of course, completely correct. The Board's last minute effort to play the GPI card is an effort to cow the Co-Chairs into adopting their views as a way of avoiding further delay. As Malcolm says, however, if the CCWG accedes to those demands it risks losing the support of many individuals and perhaps even some chartering organizations.
My own recommendation is that the Chartering Organizations withhold their support pending not only close of the public comment period but also a determination by the Co-Chairs as to how they intend to proceed. If the Co-Chairs choose to modify the Third Proposal in response to the Board and if they do so without futher engagement and public comment that process foul, by itself, would be grounds for the Chartering Organizations to reject the proposal -- and I would strongly advocate that they do so.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig [...]
Dear All, Even if we agree( all with full consensus) that we iii) re-open substantive work to produce a Fourth Draft Report, putting it on a timeline for public review that won't conclude until late-spring/early-summer, and will *still* risk the Board pulling the same stunt yet again. The displeasure of the numbers and protocols community leaders will be fearsome. I don't know what NTIA would think about being told we're pushing back the deadline by 4-6 months and will miss the Congressional calendar window, but I doubt they'll be happy either. Are we sure that at the end of the fourth round, if any , the Board would not come and make another major objection. Perhaps we could say we have the work to the nbest of our ability i) declare that we've reached the end of the line, for better or for worse, and that the Third Draft Report remains final. This may be the best option, but if it leads to transition failure they will likely be scapegoated by the Board (who would actually deserve the blame). I am not prepared to asgree on ii) bounce CCWG into accepting the core of the Board's latest demands by ignoring those that voice disagreement. This will utterly discredit the CCWG process, and may lead to many individual stakeholders (but perhaps not Chartering Organisations) directly opposing transition on this basis. This route may be the path of least resistance for the Chairs, but it will cause lasting damage to ICANN and undermine the credibility of multistakeholderism more generally, most particularly amongst multistakholderism's traditional cheerleaders. Regards Kavouss 2015-12-17 6:44 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Since when is this a choice of the Co-CHairs, instead of the whole CCWG?
Rethorical question of course.
The Charter is clear on how this works, thre can be several rounds if the Board disagrees with a 2/3.
el
On 2015-12-17 05:34 , Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all,
Paul and Malcolm, I think you make sensible points.
On Malcolm's options, my view is that i) (Third Draft is it) or a variant of iii) (Fourth Draft or at least Supplemental) are viable.
Option ii) is utterly beyond the realm of what would be reasonable or acceptable.
I still think it would be helpful for SOs and ACs to offer their views on the Recommendations by the requested deadline, even if there is a view that more work will later need to be done.
After all, it would not be helpful to the CCWG to have to do any further work it might decide to do (if it doesn't choose Malcolm's Option i)) without views from the SOs and ACs to take into account, along with public comments such as that from the Board. If we are going to do more work, we should do it with a full set of views represented by the various relevant groups.
best Jordan
On 17 December 2015 at 08:41, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
Malcolm is, of course, completely correct. The Board's last minute effort to play the GPI card is an effort to cow the Co-Chairs into adopting their views as a way of avoiding further delay. As Malcolm says, however, if the CCWG accedes to those demands it risks losing the support of many individuals and perhaps even some chartering organizations.
My own recommendation is that the Chartering Organizations withhold their support pending not only close of the public comment period but also a determination by the Co-Chairs as to how they intend to proceed. If the Co-Chairs choose to modify the Third Proposal in response to the Board and if they do so without futher engagement and public comment that process foul, by itself, would be grounds for the Chartering Organizations to reject the proposal -- and I would strongly advocate that they do so.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig [...]
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
NTIA has stated that they have not set any timelines. And the Protocol and Numbers community leaders' displeasure will be verbal and reasonably articulated. We should take all the time we need to get this right. And if we fail, so the status quo is maintained. So what. greetings, el On 2015-12-17 08:43 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All, Even if we agree( all with full consensus) that we iii) re-open substantive work to produce a Fourth Draft Report, putting it on a timeline for public review that won't conclude until late-spring/early-summer, and will *still* risk the Board pulling the same stunt yet again. The displeasure of the numbers and protocols community leaders will be fearsome. I don't know what NTIA would think about being told we're pushing back the deadline by 4-6 months and will miss the Congressional calendar window, but I doubt they'll be happy either.
Are we sure that at the end of the fourth round, if any , the Board would not come and make another major objection.
Perhaps we could say we have the work to the nbest of our ability i) declare that we've reached the end of the line, for better or for worse, and that the Third Draft Report remains final. This may be the best option, but if it leads to transition failure they will likely be scapegoated by the Board (who would actually deserve the blame). I am not prepared to asgree on
ii) bounce CCWG into accepting the core of the Board's latest demands by ignoring those that voice disagreement. This will utterly discredit the CCWG process, and may lead to many individual stakeholders (but perhaps not Chartering Organisations) directly opposing transition on this basis. This route may be the path of least resistance for the Chairs, but it will cause lasting damage to ICANN and undermine the credibility of multistakeholderism more generally, most particularly amongst multistakholderism's traditional cheerleaders. Regards Kavouss
2015-12-17 6:44 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>>:
Since when is this a choice of the Co-CHairs, instead of the whole CCWG?
Rethorical question of course.
The Charter is clear on how this works, thre can be several rounds if the Board disagrees with a 2/3.
el
On 2015-12-17 05:34 , Jordan Carter wrote: > Hi all, > > Paul and Malcolm, I think you make sensible points. > > On Malcolm's options, my view is that i) (Third Draft is it) or a > variant of iii) (Fourth Draft or at least Supplemental) are > viable. > > Option ii) is utterly beyond the realm of what would be reasonable > or acceptable. > > I still think it would be helpful for SOs and ACs to offer their > views on the Recommendations by the requested deadline, even if > there is a view that more work will later need to be done. > > After all, it would not be helpful to the CCWG to have to do any > further work it might decide to do (if it doesn't choose Malcolm's > Option i)) without views from the SOs and ACs to take into > account, along with public comments such as that from the Board. > If we are going to do more work, we should do it with a full set > of views represented by the various relevant groups. > > best > Jordan > > > On 17 December 2015 at 08:41, Paul Rosenzweig > <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>> wrote: > > Malcolm is, of course, completely correct. The Board's last > minute effort to play the GPI card is an effort to cow the > Co-Chairs into adopting their views as a way of avoiding > further delay. As Malcolm says, however, if the CCWG accedes > to those demands it risks losing the support of many > individuals and perhaps even some chartering organizations. > > My own recommendation is that the Chartering Organizations > withhold their support pending not only close of the public > comment period but also a determination by the Co-Chairs as to > how they intend to proceed. If the Co-Chairs choose to modify > the Third Proposal in response to the Board and if they do so > without futher engagement and public comment that process > foul, by itself, would be grounds for the Chartering > Organizations to reject the proposal -- and I would strongly > advocate that they do so. > > Paul > > Paul Rosenzweig [...]
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi, Before saying anything, let me be very clear that I do not represent the protocol community, or speak for it, or have any implicit or explicit authority to take a position on behalf of the IETF or the IAB or anyone else. Below is just my personal opinion. I also do not want to be understood as trying to "put pressure" on the CCWG: consensus-based systems work only if the communities involved can reach consensus. We must always be prepared that such a decision-making approach can result in failure. That's ok; the possibility of failure focusses the mind, and something that can't attract broad support might be a bad idea anyway. Now, On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:57:58PM +1300, Jordan Carter wrote:
- pressure from the numbering and protocols communities, who want this done and dusted and wish the transition had already been done.
I think that Jordan is exactly right here. In my view, this isn't the other communities wishing to apply pressure. Instead, I think, it's that we have other things we need to do. For the IETF, I have to say, the transition has been an enormous and costly distraction. My colleagues and I have only so much time to devote to IETF activities, because we all have day jobs. My employer, when agreeing to me taking the IAB chair, was assuming a 50% FTE estimate; instead, many weeks it has been rather more than 100%. I know others who are in the same boat. When you look at it from that perspective, if the names community can't come up with acceptable accountability measures in more than a year, there is little reason to believe it will ever happen. I believe that this CCWG has made enormous progress, and I think it has come up with a good and strong proposal. But if the names community cannot come together behind the proposal (or perhaps something adjusted in light of the board's suggestions -- I refuse to take a position in this message on the right course of action), I will not be surprised to hear people in the names and numbers community saying that no solution will ever come about and that we should give up. I think this would have serious implications for the IANA system and for ICANN's legitimacy; and I hope people are keeping that in mind. We don't get to go back to the way things were, regardless of what happens. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Andrew - are the protocol and numbers communities ok with the Board proposed language to the effect that ICANN: ³Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet. In this role, with respect to protocol ports and parameters, ICANN¹s scope is to provide registration services and open access for registries in the public domain requested by Internet protocol development organizations.² Same question for RSSAC (³Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system. In this role, ICANN retains an operational role as well as considers inputs from the communities dependent on the root server system.² Same question for ASO (³Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol (³IP²) and Autonomous System ("AS²) numbers and ratifies, at the global level, policies developed that are reasonably and appropriately related to these IP and AS numbers.²) J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> On 12/16/15, 11:04 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:15:16AM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
surprised to hear people in the names and numbers community saying
I meant here, of course, "the protocols and numbers communities". My apologies.
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=RQxA3t8-fLTWS4ErBNfdX1 MZ12v7PuuOfK66dNynTIM&s=xVDYoFHvHs6LELg9OTtQ4Ji3Ze5XJRJeDNyKu8FtHsQ&e=
Hi, On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:43:35PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:
Andrew - are the protocol and numbers communities ok with the Board proposed language to the effect that ICANN:
³Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet. In this role, with respect to protocol ports and parameters, ICANN¹s scope is to provide registration services and open access for registries in the public domain requested by Internet protocol development organizations.²
This is an excellent question. Unfortunately, I don't think it's one I can answer at the moment. The IAB has been evaluating the text the CCWG proposed. (Unless I've miscounted the responses, actually, I'm about to submit the IAB's response to surveymonkey.) I believe the IAB is supportive of the text the CCWG proposed. The difference in the board's text is the replacement of "mission" with "scope", I think. I really don't get why it's important to the board, and I think I'd need to think some about whether there are any implications. What I like (and I think what the IAB likes) about the CCWG text is how limited it makes the mission. (I've argued all along that the explicit additional limitations people have wanted are unnecessary, as you know.) I cannot tell whether the board's language is an attempt to widen the mission. If it is, then it's anyone's guess whether the IAB would support it. (I guess "no", to be honest, but it's just a guess.) I'll try to find out what the IAB thinks, however. Keep in mind that we just had our last meeting of the year, so responses from IAB members may be slower now. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
On Dec 16, 2015 18:31, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:43:35PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:.
The difference in the board's text is the replacement of "mission" with "scope", I think.
SO: I note that the scope in board's wording was preceded with "....in servicing it's *mission*, the scope of ICANN...." With that preceding text in mind, I don't really think the scope has been disconnected from the mission. Hence the mission is still very much dependent on the scope. I really don't get why it's important to the
board, and I think I'd need to think some about whether there are any implications.
SO: +1 As someone said, perhaps it's for further clarity and simplicity. Nevertheless, so long as "covering body with coverlet" and "covering coverlet with body" implies the same thing then one should accommodate it.
What I like (and I think what the IAB likes) about the
CCWG text is how limited it makes the mission. (I've argued all along that the explicit additional limitations people have wanted are unnecessary, as you know.) I cannot tell whether the board's language is an attempt to widen the mission.
SO: Based on my explanation above, I am yet to understand how mission widening can happen since it's already limited by the scope referenced. Unless there is reason to believe that the referenced scope is in itself already expanded. Perhaps there is legal perspective to this than just looking at it linguistically/grammatically. Maybe it's something that can be pushed to legal team for advice on implications (if any).
If it is, then it's anyone's
guess whether the IAB would support it. (I guess "no", to be honest, but it's just a guess.)
SO: Sounds fair enough as it will defeat the purpose in the first place. Regards PS: I have not had time to read the detailed board comment. Only relying on the text shared by Becky.
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All, I have studied many other documents used outside ICANN. There are major adminstrative, legal and implementation différences between " Mission " which is top level enviroment ( at the top of the PYramid ) and "Scope" which is area of appléication or responsibility situated at a much lower level than " Mission ". I see some descrpencies between the CCWG and ICANN methodology. ICANN tries to move issues from top of the paramid to elsewhere in the managerial organigram I do not agree with that for the time being Regards Kavouss 2015-12-16 19:35 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
On Dec 16, 2015 18:31, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:43:35PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:.
The difference in the board's text is the replacement of "mission" with "scope", I think.
SO: I note that the scope in board's wording was preceded with "....in servicing it's *mission*, the scope of ICANN...."
With that preceding text in mind, I don't really think the scope has been disconnected from the mission. Hence the mission is still very much dependent on the scope.
I really don't get why it's important to the
board, and I think I'd need to think some about whether there are any implications.
SO: +1 As someone said, perhaps it's for further clarity and simplicity. Nevertheless, so long as "covering body with coverlet" and "covering coverlet with body" implies the same thing then one should accommodate it.
What I like (and I think what the IAB likes) about the
CCWG text is how limited it makes the mission. (I've argued all along that the explicit additional limitations people have wanted are unnecessary, as you know.) I cannot tell whether the board's language is an attempt to widen the mission.
SO: Based on my explanation above, I am yet to understand how mission widening can happen since it's already limited by the scope referenced. Unless there is reason to believe that the referenced scope is in itself already expanded.
Perhaps there is legal perspective to this than just looking at it linguistically/grammatically. Maybe it's something that can be pushed to legal team for advice on implications (if any).
If it is, then it's anyone's
guess whether the IAB would support it. (I guess "no", to be honest, but it's just a guess.)
SO: Sounds fair enough as it will defeat the purpose in the first place.
Regards PS: I have not had time to read the detailed board comment. Only relying on the text shared by Becky.
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.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
Thank you Becky for asking for feedback from the ASO on the part of the Mission which affects us.
Same question for ASO (³Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol (³IP²) and Autonomous System ("AS²) numbers and ratifies, at the global level, policies developed that are reasonably and appropriately related to these IP and AS numbers.²)
We do not find a reference in the ASO MoU in the suggested text from the Board. Reference to the ASO MoU is important for us, which is included in the third CCWG proposal as quoted below, and we support this text. "Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol ("IP") and Autonomous System ("AS") numbers. ICANN’s Mission is described in the ASO MoU between ICANN and RIRs." Our formal position on this point will be expressed through the comment from ASO before the comment period. This is sharing the current ASO discussions - Other ASO liaisons in the CCWG may have additional comments. Izumi On 2015/12/17 1:43, Burr, Becky wrote:
Andrew - are the protocol and numbers communities ok with the Board proposed language to the effect that ICANN:
³Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet. In this role, with respect to protocol ports and parameters, ICANN¹s scope is to provide registration services and open access for registries in the public domain requested by Internet protocol development organizations.²
Same question for RSSAC (³Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system. In this role, ICANN retains an operational role as well as considers inputs from the communities dependent on the root server system.²
Same question for ASO (³Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol (³IP²) and Autonomous System ("AS²) numbers and ratifies, at the global level, policies developed that are reasonably and appropriately related to these IP and AS numbers.²)
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 12/16/15, 11:04 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:15:16AM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
surprised to hear people in the names and numbers community saying
I meant here, of course, "the protocols and numbers communities". My apologies.
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=RQxA3t8-fLTWS4ErBNfdX1 MZ12v7PuuOfK66dNynTIM&s=xVDYoFHvHs6LELg9OTtQ4Ji3Ze5XJRJeDNyKu8FtHsQ&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Izumi,
"Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol ("IP") and Autonomous System ("AS") numbers. ICANN's Mission is described in the ASO MoU between ICANN and RIRs."
I think this is more about bylaws drafting. We noted that the ASO MOU is already specified in the bylaws: " Section 1. DESCRIPTION 1. The Address Supporting Organization (ASO) shall advise the Board with respect to policy issues relating to the operation, assignment, and management of Internet addresses. 2. The ASO shall be the entity established by the Memorandum of Understanding entered on 21 October 2004 between ICANN and the Number Resource Organization (NRO), an organization of the existing regional Internet registries (RIRs)." It just seemed odd to us to have references to MoUs in a mission statement. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Hello Bruce,
2. The ASO shall be the entity established by the Memorandum of Understanding entered on 21 October 2004 between ICANN and the Number Resource Organization (NRO), an organization of the existing regional Internet registries (RIRs)."
If you see the above sentence which refers to the MoU, it only described about the ASO, not ICANN's role on the number resources. The ASO believes the Mission should accurately describe ICANN's role is on the number resources. The ASO MoU is a document, which has been agreed between ICANN and RIRs, including description of ICANN's role. This is why we believe clarity on ICANN's role related to the number resources with reference to the ASO MoU in the Mission is important. I note that it seems odd for the Board to refer to the MoU in a mission statement and have a follow up question. Does the ICANN Board have a specific concern about referencing the ASO MoU in the Mission? The ASO MoU can only be revised based on agreement by RIRs and ICANN, so it would not change the role of ICANN's role without ICANN's consent. Izumi On 2015/12/17 19:45, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Izumi,
"Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol ("IP") and Autonomous System ("AS") numbers. ICANN's Mission is described in the ASO MoU between ICANN and RIRs."
I think this is more about bylaws drafting. We noted that the ASO MOU is already specified in the bylaws:
" Section 1. DESCRIPTION
1. The Address Supporting Organization (ASO) shall advise the Board with respect to policy issues relating to the operation, assignment, and management of Internet addresses.
2. The ASO shall be the entity established by the Memorandum of Understanding entered on 21 October 2004 between ICANN and the Number Resource Organization (NRO), an organization of the existing regional Internet registries (RIRs)."
It just seemed odd to us to have references to MoUs in a mission statement.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Izumi,
The ASO MoU is a document, which has been agreed between ICANN and RIRs, including description of ICANN's role. This is why we believe clarity on ICANN's role related to the number resources with reference to the ASO MoU in the Mission is important.
Fair enough. There is no objection to the role of the Board as stated in the MOU - and I don't see an issue with appropriately incorporating it into the bylaws. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Hello Bruce, Thank you for this clarification - very helpful to know you see no concern about the ASO MoU referred in the Mission. Izumi On 2015/12/18 6:27, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Izumi,
The ASO MoU is a document, which has been agreed between ICANN and RIRs, including description of ICANN's role. This is why we believe clarity on ICANN's role related to the number resources with reference to the ASO MoU in the Mission is important.
Fair enough. There is no objection to the role of the Board as stated in the MOU - and I don't see an issue with appropriately incorporating it into the bylaws.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Jordan, Thank you for starting this discussions.
ICANN agreeing to a slower timetable is one thing, but it does not change the fact that other actors do not wish to see more time taken. I cannot imagine numbers and protocols being happy about further time. (That is a deliberate understatement. I think they would be furious.)
:) I have not much to add. As you have correctly observed Jordan, the timeline which do not affect the overall transition process is the priority for the numbers community. To share the feedback in the ASO so far - (Note this is not an official endorsed position of the ASO. I will keep the CCWG updated if there are any other comments in the ASO and/or from the CRISP Team.) It looks like not all of the suggestions from the Board would lead to substantial changes. We can reflect non-substantial changes without affecting the timelines (i.e, without extension of the comment period/another public comment). Given that keeping to a timeline that allows the NTIA contract to be terminated in September 2016 is important for us: - We support incorporating Board suggestions that are both reasonable which would not affect with the CCWG timeline. - The numbers would not be opposed to extending the CCWG timeline if and only if it will not compromise the NTIA timeline. - It would be helpful to know how strongly the ICANN Board feels about their suggestions. Perhaps different suggestions have different weight. Based on this, I have a question to Bruce as ICANN Board liaison - Is there a suggestion(s) which the ICANN Board believes must be reflected, with taking into consideration of possibly delaying the current CCWG timelines if those changes are "fundamental"? Izumi On 2015/12/16 12:57, Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all
I would like to put on record my personal observations regarding the schedule of our work for the past few months. I do so in an effort to be as transparent as possible about my own role in the process, and to offer some thoughts on the consequences of further delays at this point.
First, I believe we have pulled together a credible Third Draft report which can be accepted as is by the SOs and ACs, and would pass the NTIA tests. So the fundamental quality of the work is not in question.
Second, what will be vital (given the short timeframe for this Third Draft and the limited public comment) is that there is fulsome and non-truncated public comment on the Bylaws and other changes that will give effect to these proposals. That is where the "Every Word Has To Be Right" standard must be applied. For the current report, the intent must be clear - and that is the basis on which I have been happy to accept the truncated process for this phase.
Third, the drivers. To me the following have helped leave me able to deal with the compressed timeframe:
- pressure from senior ICANN staff and directors to "get it done" - and clear paintings, as recently as Dublin, of "horror" scenarios if the report isn't finished by mid-January. This has tended to be based on views about the U.S. political cycle.
- pressure from the numbering and protocols communities, who want this done and dusted and wish the transition had already been done.
- the desire generally to close the work out, given the slowly reducing levels of volunteer commitment evident over the past few months.
So I have been able to live with that.
Fourth, I want to note my own ongoing frustration with the way the ICANN Board has involved itself in this process: - non involvement in the first parts of the process - interventions in the second draft proposal consultation and, problematically, around the Los Angeles meeting that made it impossible for us to present a Third Draft Report to the Dublin meeting. - a new intervention now with further substantive changes proposed, some of which are fundamental to the Third Draft (esp. the human rights, voting thresholds, inspection rights and IANA budget) that cannot be incorporated without further delays to the process. - the astonishing change in tone about the timetable - from "THIS MUST BE DONE" to "we should take the time to get this right!".
It seems to me the Board's conflict of interest in this process, which is inherent (the body being held to account is inserting itself into decisions about how that should happen), has been managed in a fashion that has made our work harder, that has called into question the ability to complete a workable proposal, and has caused unnecessary stress and friction both within the CCWG and with the other operational communities.
That said: we are where we are.
So for the next few weeks I offer this observation.
If the substantive changes proposed by the Board on the items I noted above are agreed to by the CCWG, it will require:
- diligent work to assure the quality of the proposals, including legal review - a re-presentation of the final proposal, along with explanation of why the changes have been made - a re-consideration of the final proposal by the chartering SOs and ACs.
This will all take time, and in my view at least a month of time if not more. That is even if the outcome is not to agree with the Board's changes. (Personally I think a few of them are helpful, and that they should be judged on the merits - if we agree to take the time to do so.)
ICANN agreeing to a slower timetable is one thing, but it does not change the fact that other actors do not wish to see more time taken. I cannot imagine numbers and protocols being happy about further time. (That is a deliberate understatement. I think they would be furious.)
So in the end, the critical decision we face is whether to deal with substantive comment in a way that could lead to key things being changed in a manner that:
- accepts fundamental changes and the change to the schedule involved - rejects fundamental changes, and takes the risk of the Board's comment it may oppose those changes coming true
As usual, we are again in an invidious situation through no fault of our (the CCWG's) own. It is no surprise volunteer numbers are down.
I would be interested in the views of other participants on the following:
- do you think substantive changes such as those of the Board would require delays if adopted following the close of public comments?
- do you feel comfortable with delay if required?
best, Jordan
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Izumi,
Based on this, I have a question to Bruce as ICANN Board liaison - Is there a suggestion(s) which the ICANN Board believes must be reflected, with taking into consideration of possibly delaying the current CCWG timelines if those changes are "fundamental"?
We have committed to working within the timelines set by the CCWG. That means we provide our comments within the public comment period specified by the CCWG. When we receive the final report from the CCWG we intend to meet and vote on that report as soon as possible. If we end up voting against a recommendation - we would then set a time for dialogue with the CCWG as soon as the CCWG is available (ie days not weeks). Regards, Bruce Tonkin Izumi On 2015/12/16 12:57, Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all
I would like to put on record my personal observations regarding the schedule of our work for the past few months. I do so in an effort to be as transparent as possible about my own role in the process, and to offer some thoughts on the consequences of further delays at this point.
First, I believe we have pulled together a credible Third Draft report which can be accepted as is by the SOs and ACs, and would pass the NTIA tests. So the fundamental quality of the work is not in question.
Second, what will be vital (given the short timeframe for this Third Draft and the limited public comment) is that there is fulsome and non-truncated public comment on the Bylaws and other changes that will give effect to these proposals. That is where the "Every Word Has To Be Right" standard must be applied. For the current report, the intent must be clear - and that is the basis on which I have been happy to accept the truncated process for this phase.
Third, the drivers. To me the following have helped leave me able to deal with the compressed timeframe:
- pressure from senior ICANN staff and directors to "get it done" - and clear paintings, as recently as Dublin, of "horror" scenarios if the report isn't finished by mid-January. This has tended to be based on views about the U.S. political cycle.
- pressure from the numbering and protocols communities, who want this done and dusted and wish the transition had already been done.
- the desire generally to close the work out, given the slowly reducing levels of volunteer commitment evident over the past few months.
So I have been able to live with that.
Fourth, I want to note my own ongoing frustration with the way the ICANN Board has involved itself in this process: - non involvement in the first parts of the process - interventions in the second draft proposal consultation and, problematically, around the Los Angeles meeting that made it impossible for us to present a Third Draft Report to the Dublin meeting. - a new intervention now with further substantive changes proposed, some of which are fundamental to the Third Draft (esp. the human rights, voting thresholds, inspection rights and IANA budget) that cannot be incorporated without further delays to the process. - the astonishing change in tone about the timetable - from "THIS MUST BE DONE" to "we should take the time to get this right!".
It seems to me the Board's conflict of interest in this process, which is inherent (the body being held to account is inserting itself into decisions about how that should happen), has been managed in a fashion that has made our work harder, that has called into question the ability to complete a workable proposal, and has caused unnecessary stress and friction both within the CCWG and with the other operational communities.
That said: we are where we are.
So for the next few weeks I offer this observation.
If the substantive changes proposed by the Board on the items I noted above are agreed to by the CCWG, it will require:
- diligent work to assure the quality of the proposals, including legal review - a re-presentation of the final proposal, along with explanation of why the changes have been made - a re-consideration of the final proposal by the chartering SOs and ACs.
This will all take time, and in my view at least a month of time if not more. That is even if the outcome is not to agree with the Board's changes. (Personally I think a few of them are helpful, and that they should be judged on the merits - if we agree to take the time to do so.)
ICANN agreeing to a slower timetable is one thing, but it does not change the fact that other actors do not wish to see more time taken. I cannot imagine numbers and protocols being happy about further time. (That is a deliberate understatement. I think they would be furious.)
So in the end, the critical decision we face is whether to deal with substantive comment in a way that could lead to key things being changed in a manner that:
- accepts fundamental changes and the change to the schedule involved - rejects fundamental changes, and takes the risk of the Board's comment it may oppose those changes coming true
As usual, we are again in an invidious situation through no fault of our (the CCWG's) own. It is no surprise volunteer numbers are down.
I would be interested in the views of other participants on the following:
- do you think substantive changes such as those of the Board would require delays if adopted following the close of public comments?
- do you feel comfortable with delay if required?
best, Jordan
_______________________________________________ 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
Thank you Bruce for your timely response to my question. I realise the question was not clear enough, which sounded like a question about the Board's position about the timelines and the process. Let me try again - It would be helpful to know how strongly the ICANN Board feels about some of the suggestions the Board has made in the public comment, to have them reflected in the final CCWG proposal. Specifically: - Out of a number of suggestions the ICANN Board has made in the public comment, is there any suggestion which ICANN Board feel strongly about, to have it reflected in the final CCWG proposal? (Including considerations to possible impact on the timelines to reflect the suggestion) - Or does the Board strongly believe equally in all of the suggestions it has made, to have them reflected in the final proposal? To explain a little more of the thinking behind - Out of the comment ICANN Board has submitted on each of the #12 recommendations, I wonder perhaps different suggestions from the Board, expressed in the public comment have different weight. Board's response to my question would be helpful in considering further on how we handle a case which meets the both conditions below (if there is any which are applicable). - A suggestion(s) from the ICANN Board, which is perceived as "fundamental changes" from the CCWG 3rd version of the proposal, which could change the current CCWG timelines; AND - A suggstion(s) from the ICANN Board, which ICANN Board strongly believe must be reflected in the final CCWG proposal If this will need further discussions in the Board, I understand and will note that as status, which would still be helpful. Thanks, Izumi On 2015/12/17 19:41, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Izumi,
Based on this, I have a question to Bruce as ICANN Board liaison - Is there a suggestion(s) which the ICANN Board believes must be reflected, with taking into consideration of possibly delaying the current CCWG timelines if those changes are "fundamental"?
We have committed to working within the timelines set by the CCWG. That means we provide our comments within the public comment period specified by the CCWG.
When we receive the final report from the CCWG we intend to meet and vote on that report as soon as possible. If we end up voting against a recommendation - we would then set a time for dialogue with the CCWG as soon as the CCWG is available (ie days not weeks).
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Izumi
On 2015/12/16 12:57, Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all
I would like to put on record my personal observations regarding the schedule of our work for the past few months. I do so in an effort to be as transparent as possible about my own role in the process, and to offer some thoughts on the consequences of further delays at this point.
First, I believe we have pulled together a credible Third Draft report which can be accepted as is by the SOs and ACs, and would pass the NTIA tests. So the fundamental quality of the work is not in question.
Second, what will be vital (given the short timeframe for this Third Draft and the limited public comment) is that there is fulsome and non-truncated public comment on the Bylaws and other changes that will give effect to these proposals. That is where the "Every Word Has To Be Right" standard must be applied. For the current report, the intent must be clear - and that is the basis on which I have been happy to accept the truncated process for this phase.
Third, the drivers. To me the following have helped leave me able to deal with the compressed timeframe:
- pressure from senior ICANN staff and directors to "get it done" - and clear paintings, as recently as Dublin, of "horror" scenarios if the report isn't finished by mid-January. This has tended to be based on views about the U.S. political cycle.
- pressure from the numbering and protocols communities, who want this done and dusted and wish the transition had already been done.
- the desire generally to close the work out, given the slowly reducing levels of volunteer commitment evident over the past few months.
So I have been able to live with that.
Fourth, I want to note my own ongoing frustration with the way the ICANN Board has involved itself in this process: - non involvement in the first parts of the process - interventions in the second draft proposal consultation and, problematically, around the Los Angeles meeting that made it impossible for us to present a Third Draft Report to the Dublin meeting. - a new intervention now with further substantive changes proposed, some of which are fundamental to the Third Draft (esp. the human rights, voting thresholds, inspection rights and IANA budget) that cannot be incorporated without further delays to the process. - the astonishing change in tone about the timetable - from "THIS MUST BE DONE" to "we should take the time to get this right!".
It seems to me the Board's conflict of interest in this process, which is inherent (the body being held to account is inserting itself into decisions about how that should happen), has been managed in a fashion that has made our work harder, that has called into question the ability to complete a workable proposal, and has caused unnecessary stress and friction both within the CCWG and with the other operational communities.
That said: we are where we are.
So for the next few weeks I offer this observation.
If the substantive changes proposed by the Board on the items I noted above are agreed to by the CCWG, it will require:
- diligent work to assure the quality of the proposals, including legal review - a re-presentation of the final proposal, along with explanation of why the changes have been made - a re-consideration of the final proposal by the chartering SOs and ACs.
This will all take time, and in my view at least a month of time if not more. That is even if the outcome is not to agree with the Board's changes. (Personally I think a few of them are helpful, and that they should be judged on the merits - if we agree to take the time to do so.)
ICANN agreeing to a slower timetable is one thing, but it does not change the fact that other actors do not wish to see more time taken. I cannot imagine numbers and protocols being happy about further time. (That is a deliberate understatement. I think they would be furious.)
So in the end, the critical decision we face is whether to deal with substantive comment in a way that could lead to key things being changed in a manner that:
- accepts fundamental changes and the change to the schedule involved - rejects fundamental changes, and takes the risk of the Board's comment it may oppose those changes coming true
As usual, we are again in an invidious situation through no fault of our (the CCWG's) own. It is no surprise volunteer numbers are down.
I would be interested in the views of other participants on the following:
- do you think substantive changes such as those of the Board would require delays if adopted following the close of public comments?
- do you feel comfortable with delay if required?
best, Jordan
_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Izumi, Yes ,it is rather strange to refer to an MoU which does not have a legal status but some sort of understanding between the concerned parties in a high level Bylaws provision suc as Mission Stement and similar high level provision. There is no impact of th BYLAWS amendments on the implementation nor on the content of that MoU. Regards Kavouss
Hello Izumi,
It would be helpful to know how strongly the ICANN Board feels about some of the suggestions the Board has made in the public comment, to have them reflected in the final CCWG proposal.
We have made several suggestions for improvements, and we hope all suggestions will be considered along with other public comments. The areas of particular concern for the Board are: - appropriately drafting of inspection rights in the bylaws (recommendation 1) - ensuring that the users of the IANA function are involved in any veto of the portion of the ICANN budget allocated to operating the IANA function (recommendation 4) - appropriate drafting of the mission and scope of responsibilities in the bylaws (recommendation 5) - getting a statement and framework for human rights right before incorporating text into the bylaws (recommendation 6) - I expect that can be done prior to transition as part of work stream 2 - using the same methodology for approving recommendations from work stream 2 as work stream 1 (recommendation 12) Regards, Bruce Tonkin
FYI, I would like to share this statement from the CRISP Team regarding the CCWG timetable. Please note that this is separate from a comment as the ASO. ---- Dear CCWG, The CRISP Team would like to express our comment on the discussions on the CCWG regarding the timelines, in incorporating comment from the ICANN Board: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-December/0... As it has been well stated by some CCWG members, the CCWG timeline does not only affect the names community but has wider implications to the IANA Stewardship transition process and its timelines. The CRISP Team would like to emphasise our strong concerns on extension of the CCWG timeline if it will compromise the NTIA timelines on the IANA stewardship transition. We support the feedback of the ASO discussions, shared on the CCWG list, as a helpful way forward : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-December/0... We thank the CCWG in considering the timelines with acknowledgement of the needs of the other operational communities. We observe tremendous efforts have been made by the CCWG in addressing the challenges which arise through the process and finding a way forward, without affecting the transition timelines. Now that is is very close to the end of the process in finalising its proposal, we trust the CCWG complete its work, maintaining to keep in line with the overall transition timelines. Best Regards, Izumi Okutani on behalf of the CRISP Team ----
Two clarifications about this statement as I mentioned at the CCWG call last week. The comment for the ICANN Board is listed here as an example, but this is intended to be applicable for any comments to the third version of the proposal, not just from the Board. It is addressed to the CCWG Co-Chairs but to be shared to the CCWG as a group. Happy holidays for those who celebrate Christmas. It is a regular working day here in Tokyo, but the city is filled with Christmas atmosphere and decorations. Izumi On 2015/12/22 10:36, Izumi Okutani wrote:
FYI, I would like to share this statement from the CRISP Team regarding the CCWG timetable. Please note that this is separate from a comment as the ASO.
---- Dear CCWG,
The CRISP Team would like to express our comment on the discussions on the CCWG regarding the timelines, in incorporating comment from the ICANN Board:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-December/0...
As it has been well stated by some CCWG members, the CCWG timeline does not only affect the names community but has wider implications to the IANA Stewardship transition process and its timelines.
The CRISP Team would like to emphasise our strong concerns on extension of the CCWG timeline if it will compromise the NTIA timelines on the IANA stewardship transition.
We support the feedback of the ASO discussions, shared on the CCWG list, as a helpful way forward : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-December/0...
We thank the CCWG in considering the timelines with acknowledgement of the needs of the other operational communities.
We observe tremendous efforts have been made by the CCWG in addressing the challenges which arise through the process and finding a way forward, without affecting the transition timelines. Now that is is very close to the end of the process in finalising its proposal, we trust the CCWG complete its work, maintaining to keep in line with the overall transition timelines.
Best Regards,
Izumi Okutani on behalf of the CRISP Team ----
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (15)
-
Aarti Bhavana -
Andrew Sullivan -
Bruce Tonkin -
Burr, Becky -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Dr. Tatiana Tropina -
Greg Shatan -
Izumi Okutani -
James Gannon -
Jordan Carter -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Malcolm Hutty -
Nigel Roberts -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Seun Ojedeji