Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] New section - ICANN Community Assembly
May I suggest that we defer the ICA (or whatever it evolves into) to WS2. I think an interesting discussion is evolving, but we don't need to have it now, and I particularly think that it requires more careful thought. Let's just say there will be a recommendation in WS2 as to how to structure the community discussion leading up to multiple petitions (if required for a single power) and post-petition and prior to voting. We will not likely need this powers in the coming months, and if we do, some sort of community discussion will happen regardless of us architecting it or not. Alan At 24/07/2015 10:57 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all
I have taken the draft material from an older paper about the ICANN Community Assembly and pulled it into one place.
Please see attached and debate away! I've tried to be clear on its solely advisory nature, and have suggested that this would be the forum to use for the Public Accountability Forum suggestion made by advisors a while ago.
best, Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.docx" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.docx" X-Attachment-Id: f_icigutmm0
Content-Type: application/pdf; name="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.pdf" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="5A3 - Community Mechanism - ICANN Community Assembly - v1.pdf" X-Attachment-Id: f_icigutn11
_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list WP1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
Another waffle-shop must be in place before the transition can take place? Or even after? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jul 27, 2015, at 16:29, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
May I suggest that we defer the ICA (or whatever it evolves into) to WS2.
I think an interesting discussion is evolving, but we don't need to have it now, and I particularly think that it requires more careful thought.
Let's just say there will be a recommendation in WS2 as to how to structure the community discussion leading up to multiple petitions (if required for a single power) and post-petition and prior to voting.
We will not likely need this powers in the coming months, and if we do, some sort of community discussion will happen regardless of us architecting it or not.
Alan
At 24/07/2015 10:57 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all
I have taken the draft material from an older paper about the ICANN Community Assembly and pulled it into one place.
Please see attached and debate away! I've tried to be clear on its solely advisory nature, and have suggested that this would be the forum to use for the Public Accountability Forum suggestion made by advisors a while ago.
best, Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
[...]
Hi Alan, I completely disagree. The ICA is an integral part of the model we've proposed to exercise community powers. ---------------------------------------- - We will not likely need this powers in the coming months, and if we do, some sort of community discussion will happen regardless of us architecting it or not. If community discussion was all the ICA was designed to foster you might be correct. It's much more than that though. The ICA is community plus. The community will be there but so won't, should he or she chose, the ICANN CEO as well as Board members, staff...it's a fantastic idea and I'm hopeful would negate the need for votes or the exercise of community powers. Bringing people together to foster dialogue about contentious issues should, in most cases, allow reasonable people to broker differences and avoid the need to escalate conflict. I'm also a little bit leary of going the "some sort of community discussion" group route. Ad hoc discussions tend to result in less diversity, less inclusiveness and perpetuate a status quo that may or may not be legitimate. I'm a big supporter of the ICA, excited about it's potential, and certainly can see no reason to defer it to WS2. Best, Ed
Might I suggest a different name, perhaps ICANN Community Forum (ICF), or Gathering (ICG), or something else that doesn't have ICA as its acronym. Otherwise there may be repeated confusion regarding this proposed ICA and the Internet Commerce Association (ICA), which I have represented within the Business Constituency since 2007 Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: wp1-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Edward Morris Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 1:32 PM To: Alan Greenberg; Jordan Carter; wp1@icann.org; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [WP1] [CCWG-ACCT] New section - ICANN Community Assembly Hi Alan, I completely disagree. The ICA is an integral part of the model we've proposed to exercise community powers. ________________________________ - We will not likely need this powers in the coming months, and if we do, some sort of community discussion will happen regardless of us architecting it or not. If community discussion was all the ICA was designed to foster you might be correct. It's much more than that though. The ICA is community plus. The community will be there but so won't, should he or she chose, the ICANN CEO as well as Board members, staff...it's a fantastic idea and I'm hopeful would negate the need for votes or the exercise of community powers. Bringing people together to foster dialogue about contentious issues should, in most cases, allow reasonable people to broker differences and avoid the need to escalate conflict. I'm also a little bit leary of going the "some sort of community discussion" group route. Ad hoc discussions tend to result in less diversity, less inclusiveness and perpetuate a status quo that may or may not be legitimate. I'm a big supporter of the ICA, excited about it's potential, and certainly can see no reason to defer it to WS2. Best, Ed ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6037 / Virus Database: 4392/10258 - Release Date: 07/18/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Edward Morris -
Phil Corwin