Those of you interested in our work will be fascinated to learn that ICANN's outgoing CEO Fadi Chehade is presenting his own personal interpretation right now at GAC: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dub54-liffeya Both on the work we have done (where the representation isn't accurate) and on the schedule of our future work (where according to him, we need to finish in 5 weeks). You may find it instructive to observe, or to read the transcripts. 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 17 Oct 2015, at 11:32, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Both on the work we have done (where the representation isn't accurate) and on the schedule of our future work (where according to him, we need to finish in 5 weeks).
I think we are indebted to Mathieu for firmly, yet with exquisite diplomacy, stepping in to "clarify" some points, so that the audience had a correct understanding.
Yes an amazing display of statesmanship from our co-chair. To be commended for setting the record straight with this critical set of stakeholders. -James On 17/10/2015, 3:50 p.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:
On 17 Oct 2015, at 11:32, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Both on the work we have done (where the representation isn't accurate) and on the schedule of our future work (where according to him, we need to finish in 5 weeks).
I think we are indebted to Mathieu for firmly, yet with exquisite diplomacy, stepping in to "clarify" some points, so that the audience had a correct understanding. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Agreed. It is amazing how the biggest threat to the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model comes from ICANN's board and staff. Robin On Oct 17, 2015, at 7:52 AM, James Gannon wrote:
Yes an amazing display of statesmanship from our co-chair. To be commended for setting the record straight with this critical set of stakeholders.
-James
On 17/10/2015, 3:50 p.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:
On 17 Oct 2015, at 11:32, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Both on the work we have done (where the representation isn't accurate) and on the schedule of our future work (where according to him, we need to finish in 5 weeks).
I think we are indebted to Mathieu for firmly, yet with exquisite diplomacy, stepping in to "clarify" some points, so that the audience had a correct understanding. _______________________________________________ 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
Indeed. Yet another "prize" for Mathieu Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse any typing errors
On 17 Oct 2015, at 15:53, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 17 Oct 2015, at 11:32, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Both on the work we have done (where the representation isn't accurate) and on the schedule of our future work (where according to him, we need to finish in 5 weeks).
I think we are indebted to Mathieu for firmly, yet with exquisite diplomacy, stepping in to "clarify" some points, so that the audience had a correct understanding. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
The Chehadé-Waffler at it again. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 17 Oct 2015, at 15:32, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Those of you interested in our work will be fascinated to learn that ICANN's outgoing CEO Fadi Chehade is presenting his own personal interpretation right now at GAC:
https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dub54-liffeya
Both on the work we have done (where the representation isn't accurate) and on the schedule of our future work (where according to him, we need to finish in 5 weeks).
You may find it instructive to observe, or to read the transcripts.
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
For those interested, closing comments from Thomas and Fadi. Jordan
*THOMAS RICKERT*: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND BEFORE WE LEAVE, WE WANTED TO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR INTEREST IN THIS IMPORTANT INITIATIVE AND FOR HAVING ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TO YOU WHERE THE COMMUNITY PROCESS STANDS.
AT THE SAME TIME, I'D LIKE TO ECHO WHAT KAVOUSS SAID. WE WOULD REALLY LIKE TO EXTEND THE INVITATION TO WORK WITH US TO EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM AND CAN TO THOSE WHO ARE NOT ABLE TO BE HERE WITH US HERE TODAY. IT'S IMPORTANT WORK. IT'S GOOD WORK. IT'S ASTOUNDING TO SEE THE COLLABORATIVE SPIRIT OF EVERYONE IN THE ROOM, TO COME TO A CONCLUSION. AND ALTHOUGH THIS IS VERY CHALLENGING, WE'RE EVEN HAVING FUN AT TIMES. SO COME JOIN THE TEAM.
*FADI CHEHADE*: THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME AND ALL OF US TO COME AND TAKE SOME TIME WITH YOU. I WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH THREE SUBSTANTIVE POINTS.
THE FIRST ONE, WHATEVER WE DO, MAKE YOUR KEY PRINCIPLE THE AVOIDANCE OF CAPTURE. IT IS CRITICAL. IT IS HOW WE HOLD TO THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL. IF WE ARE CAPTURED OR IF WE CREATE A MODEL THAT ALLOWS FOR CAPTURE BY SPECIAL INTERESTS OR SPECIAL AGENDAS, IN MY OPINION, THE ICANN WE WERE ALL HANDED WOULD HAVE BEEN RUINED. TWO, WATCH CAREFULLY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES THAT REFOCUS AND ANCHOR ICANN IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS AS OPPOSED TO CONTINUING THE PROJECT OF GLOBALIZATION WE ALL STARTED. WATCH FOR THAT. IF ALL ROADS END THERE, THAT'S ONE THING. BUT IF ALL ROADS START AT THE COURTS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. SO THIS IS THE DISTINCTION. ARE THE COURTS THE FINAL POINT OF ENFORCEMENT OR ARE THEY THE FIRST POINT OF ENFORCEMENT? ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION AS YOU WATCH THE VARIOUS MODELS. AND THIS IS CRITICAL. THE GOOD NEWS IS OUR COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDS THAT, AND I THINK MANY OF YOU GOVERNMENTS WHO HAVE TALKED TO ME HAVE VOICED YOUR CONCERN WITH A CALIFORNIA SYSTEM OR COURT SYSTEM BECOMING OUR FIRST RECOURSE. AND THE THIRD POINT I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU BEFORE I LEAVE IS NOT TO FORGET WHY WE'RE DOING ALL OF THIS. I THINK IT WAS VERY CLEAR WHEN ALL THESE GROUPS WERE CREATED THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE A TRANSITION WORK. THE QUESTION WAS ASKED WHEN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS NO LONGER IN ITS STEWARDSHIP ROLE AS THE BACKSTOP OF THE COMMUNITY, WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO REPLACE THAT? THAT WAS THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED. AND, THEREFORE, AS THINGS GET PILED ON, THE TEST YOU SHOULD USE IS IS THIS NECESSARY TO REPLACE THE BACKSTOP ROLE OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT? IF WE DON'T DO THAT, THEN WE WILL WATCH OUR TRANSITION SLIP AWAY, SOMETHING THAT I THINK WOULD BE A SHAME. WE WOULD LIKE ICANN TO BECOME AN INDEPENDENT MULTISTAKEHOLDER ORGANIZATION. THIS IS THE MOMENT. On 17 October 2015 at 16:19, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
The Chehadé-Waffler at it again.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 17 Oct 2015, at 15:32, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Those of you interested in our work will be fascinated to learn that ICANN's outgoing CEO Fadi Chehade is presenting his own personal interpretation right now at GAC:
https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dub54-liffeya
Both on the work we have done (where the representation isn't accurate) and on the schedule of our future work (where according to him, we need to finish in 5 weeks).
You may find it instructive to observe, or to read the transcripts.
best Jordan
FADI CHEHADE: THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME AND ALL OF US TO COME AND TAKE SOME TIME WITH YOU. I WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH THREE SUBSTANTIVE POINTS.
THE FIRST ONE, WHATEVER WE DO, MAKE YOUR KEY PRINCIPLE THE AVOIDANCE OF CAPTURE. IT IS CRITICAL. IT IS HOW WE HOLD TO THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL. IF WE ARE CAPTURED OR IF WE CREATE A MODEL THAT ALLOWS FOR CAPTURE BY SPECIAL INTERESTS OR SPECIAL AGENDAS, IN MY OPINION, THE ICANN WE WERE ALL HANDED WOULD HAVE BEEN RUINED.
This principle is what made ICANN of what it's today, so advocating for it is actually advocating for the continuation of its current form, if that's what the community wants. Although the current model was successful in avoiding capture from the different parts of the community, it hasn't prevented the capture from the corporation itself and from the corporation becoming more interested in its own survival than on serving its mission. But besides this particular special interest, which is neutral in nature, I agree that it prevented capture from the stakeholder sectors, which is indeed remarkable.
TWO, WATCH CAREFULLY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES THAT REFOCUS AND ANCHOR ICANN IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS AS OPPOSED TO CONTINUING THE PROJECT OF GLOBALIZATION WE ALL STARTED. WATCH FOR THAT. IF ALL ROADS END THERE, THAT'S ONE THING. BUT IF ALL ROADS START AT THE COURTS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. SO THIS IS THE DISTINCTION.
Agree with this precaution, but it's curious that the board proposal actually increases that dependency. Rubens
Here were Fadi’s remarks to GAC:
FADI CHEHADE: THANK YOU, THOMAS, AND THANK YOU TO THE GAC CHAIRS AND VICE CHAIRS HERE WHO INVITED ME TO -- WHO ACCEPTED MY OFFER TO COME AND SPEAK.
I THINK MANY OF YOU MUST BE, BY NOW, TIRED BY THE NUMBER OF WORDS THAT WE ALL NEED TO SIFT THROUGH TO FIGURE OUT A WAY FORWARD. I AM, TOO. IT'S A LOT OF WORK FOR MANY OF US TO CATCH UP WITH EVERYTHING. AND I DO REALIZE THAT, UNLIKE ME, MOST OF YOU HAVE OTHER JOBS TO DO ALSO, AND A BIG PORTFOLIO OF ACTIVITIES TO DO, AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO KEEP UP WITH EVERYTHING HERE. I MUST SAY THAT MOST OF YOU KNOW THAT I WILL BE LEAVING ICANN IN A FEW MONTHS, AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, I'M -- I HAVE, FRANKLY, NO STAKE HERE OTHER THAN TO CONTINUE STICKING TO THE PRINCIPLES THAT I SHARED WITH YOU FROM MY VERY FIRST MEETING IN PRAGUE, THE PRINCIPLES OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER COMMUNITY, PRINCIPLES OF WORKING PARTY TOGETHER WITH RESPECT, TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT THE WORLD NEEDS: A PLACE WHERE ALL STAKEHOLDERS COME TOGETHER AND ACTUALLY PRODUCE REAL SOLUTIONS. I THINK THE WORLD RIGHT NOW IS VERY, VERY DISAPPOINTED WITH ITS INSTITUTIONS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE EDELMAN TRUST INDEX WHICH HAS BEEN COMING OUT EVERY YEAR, EVERY SINGLE TYPE OF INSTITUTION ON THE PLANET IS LOSING TRUST FROM ITS PEOPLE. GOVERNMENTS, BUSINESSES, EVEN ACADEMIA IS STARTING TO DROP. NGOs, WAY DOWN. THIS IS THE REALITY OF THE WORLD WE ARE LIVING IN NOW. PEOPLE ARE EMPOWERED. THE INTERNET INFORMS, AND TRUST IS WANING. IT'S A DIFFICULT PLACE TO BE. AND IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS ENVIRONMENT, ICANN OPENED UP ITS ENTIRE CONCEPT AS A MULTISTAKEHOLDER GOVERNANCE PLACE AND SAID LET'S MAKE IT BETTER. AND IN THE PROCESS, WE HAVE SEEN ENORMOUS WORK DONE BY HOUR COMMUNITY, LED BY THE THREE CHAIRS SITTING TO MY RIGHT WHOM YOU MET, THAT HAVE DONE, IN MY OPINION, A REMARKABLE JOB, BECAUSE THIS IS A DIFFICULT TASK. IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT TASK. I WAS THREE WEEKS AGO HAVING LUNCH WITH ALL THE PROFESSORS OF THE KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT AT HARVARD. THEY WERE ASKING ME HOW WAS IT GOING. HOW WAS ICANN'S ACCOUNTABILITY DISCUSSIONS GOING. AND THEY WERE SHOCKED BY HOW FAR WE'VE GOTTEN AND WHAT WE'RE DOING BECAUSE THE EXPERIMENT YOU'RE INVOLVED IN IS GROUND BREAKING. THERE IS NOTHING LIKE IT. AND THEY ADMITTED THAT NEITHER GOVERNMENTS NOR THEM AS ACADEMIC PROFESSORS OF GOVERNANCE HAVE EVER FACED SOMETHING LIKE THIS WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE A MODEL TO SHARE POWER BETWEEN VERY DIVERSE, VERY BROAD INTERESTS IN ONE PLACE WITHOUT THE POWER OF A FLAG AND WITHOUT THE POWER OF A LEGAL ENVIRONMENT. WE ARE DOING IT AS A COMMUNITY. THIS IS DIFFICULT STUFF. SO AS WE FACE THIS DIFFICULTY, WE NEED TO STAY CALM AND WE NEED TO STAY COMPOSED, AND WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT ALL OF US ARE NOW EXPOSED TO THE SAUSAGE FACTORY. WE'RE WATCHING HOW DECISIONS ARE GETTING MADE AND FRAMEWORKS ARE BEING BUILT. AND THAT'S NOT EASY. SOME OF US ARE SAYING THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL IS FALLING APART. IF WE SAY THAT, THEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL IS. THIS IS THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL. THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. WHAT THESE THREE HAVE BEEN PRESIDING OVER IS PRECISELY WHAT THEY SHOULD BE PRESIDING OVER: DIALOGUE, DISCUSSION, VIGOROUS, PASSIONATE POSITIONS. THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. YOU ALL KNOW THAT. YOU'VE SEEN IT IN OTHER PLACES, AND IT'S HAPPENING HERE. THAT'S NO DIFFERENT. SO I WANT US TO START BY BEING VERY CONFIDENT THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT PROCESS THAT WE STARTED TOGETHER. THIS IS EXACTLY HOW OUTCOMES HAPPEN IN A MULTISTAKEHOLDER ENVIRONMENT. AND NOW GOVERNMENTS, LIKE YOU, WATCH THIS AND SAY, "THIS IS NOT HOW WE NORMALLY WORK. THIS IS NOT HOW WE EXPECT THINGS TO WORK." BUT THIS IS OKAY. THIS IS AN INVITATION AS MANY OF YOU, LIKE KAVOUSS AND OTHERS HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROCESS, ARE WATCHING AND BUILDING WITHIN THAT PROCESS. I AM VERY CERTAIN THAT BY THE END OF DUBLIN, WE WILL BE IN A BETTER PLACE IN TERMS OF CLARITY AS TO HOW THIS PROCESS WILL MOVE FORWARD. AND WE HAVE TO. WE HAVE TO. IF WE DON'T, THEN I THINK THE TIMELINE THAT THE COMMUNITY SET FOR THE TRANSITION, WHICH IS FOR THE CONTRACT WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO END ON SEPTEMBER 30th, 2016, THAT TIMELINE WHICH THE COMMUNITY SET WILL NO LONGER BE POSSIBLE. SO THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU -- FOR US TO NOTE. THE COMMUNITY SET A TIMELINE. THE CONTRACT WAS EXTENDED FOR ONE YEAR ACCORDING TO THAT TIMELINE, IF WE DO NOT GET A PROPOSAL IN THE HANDS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, THAT TIMELINE IS IN GREAT JEOPARDY. IT DOESN'T MEAN BE WE CAN'T MAKE THE TRANSITION IN 2017, '18 OR '19. THERE'S NO DEADLINE. BUT THE TIMELINE WE SET WILL BE IN JEOPARDY. NOW, HOW DO WE GET TO A PROPOSAL AT THE END OF 2016? WELL, LET'S BACK OFF THE STEPS. THE BOARD IS TO HAND THE GOVERNMENT THE PROPOSAL. TO DO THAT, THE BOARD NEEDS TO RECEIVE THE PROPOSAL. WHO DOES THE BOARD RECEIVE THE PROPOSAL FROM? NOT THEM. NOT THE ICG; RIGHT? THE PROPOSAL HAS TO BE FIRST GONE THROUGH THE CHARTERING ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING YOU, AND RECEIVE APPROVAL. ONCE YOU APPROVE IT, WE WILL THEN TAKE IT AND GIVE IT TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. NOW, YOU NEED TIME TO REVIEW IT AND APPROVE IT. LET'S ASSUME THAT WILL TAKE YOU A MONTH. IS THAT -- PROBABLY IN GOVERNMENT TERMS, THAT'S TIME TO MAKE A QUICK READ, BUT WE WILL NOT HAVE MORE THAN A MONTH TO DO THAT. I'M BEING CANDID WITH YOU. SO IF YOU GET THIS BY END OF NOVEMBER, THEN YOU HAVE A MONTH TO LOOK AT IT, AND THAT'S THE ONLY MONTH WE HAVE THEN TO TAKE IT AND PASS IT ON TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. NOW, FOR THEM TO FINISH BY END OF NOVEMBER, WE NEED TWO PARTS. WE NEED THE ICG PROPOSAL, AND WE KNEELED THE CCWG PROPOSAL. THE ICG PROPOSAL IS ALL BUT DONE. SO WE HAVE NO DANGER OF TIMELINE THERE. THE CCWG PROPOSAL IS NOT DONE. THEREFORE, THE FOCUS RIGHT NOW IS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THAT DONE BY THE END OF NOVEMBER SO IT CAN COME TO YOU AND HOPEFULLY, WITH YOUR HELP, NOT YOU, JUST THE GAC, ALL THE CHARTERING ORGANIZATIONS, WE CAN REVIEW IT, SUPPORT IT AND THEN HAND IT TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BY THE END OF THIS YEAR. THIS GIVES THE NTIA THE TIME IT NEEDS TO REVIEW IT, TO HOPEFULLY GIVE US THE GO AHEAD, AND THEN ALLOW MY TEAM TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSAL. AND PEOPLE TELL US, "WHY AREN'T YOU START STARTING TO IMPLEMENT TODAY?" WELL, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A PROPOSAL. WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO IMPLEMENT? WELL, THERE ARE SOME PARTS OF THE PROPOSAL YOU CAN START TO IMPLEMENT. FINE. AND AND WE HAVE. AND THIS AFTERNOON AKRAM WILL DESCRIBE SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES WE HAVE STARTED TO IMPLEMENT. SO I'M JUST GIVING YOU THIS PICTURE SO YOU CAN APPRECIATE HOW THESE DOMINOES WILL FIT SO THE GOVERNMENT HAS ITS TIME IN JANUARY, FEBRUARY TO REVIEW THE PROPOSAL. REMEMBER, THERE IS A BILL IN CONGRESS CALLED THE DOTCOM ACT THAT HAS PASSED THE HOUSE BUT HAS NOT PASSED THE SENATE. IF IT PASSES THE SENATE OR IF IT'S INCLUDED IN SOME KIND OF PACKAGE AT THE END OF THIS YEAR IN THE GOVERNMENT OMNIBUS PROPOSAL, THEN IT WILL BECOME LAW. AND IF IT BECOMES LAW, THEN THAT BILL ALONE WILL PAD MORE MONTHS ON LARRY'S WORK, BECAUSE THAT BILL SAYS THAT LARRY WILL NEED TO CERTIFY THAT OUR PROPOSAL MEETS THE U.S. NTIA REQUIREMENTS. AND ONCE HE CERTIFIES, HE STARTS A CLOCK OF A COUPLE OF MONTHS OR SO FOR CONGRESS TO ENTER INTO DIALOGUE WITH HIM. SO THESE ARE THE FACTS THAT WE ALL NEED TO APPRECIATE, ALL OF WHICH POINT TO THE WORK UPON US RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS HOW DO WE GET THROUGH THIS VERY IMPORTANT PHASE OF GETTING THE WORK OF THE CCWG COMPLETED BY END OF NOVEMBER. HOW FAR IS END OF NOVEMBER, LEON? THAT'S LIKE FIVE WEEKS? SIX WEEKS?
LEON SANCHEZ: NOT ENOUGH. FADI CHEHADE: NOT ENOUGH. SO WE'RE FIVE, SIX WEEKS AWAY FROM THOSE FOLKS WHO HAVE DEDICATED INCREDIBLE, INCREDIBLE HOURS OF THEIR TIME. THEY ALL HAVE DAY JOBS, BY THE WAY, IN CASE YOU DIDN'T KNOW. MATHIEU RUNS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE LARGEST ccTLDs IN THE WORLD IN FRANCE. THOMAS HAS A FAMILY AND A BUSINESS TO SUPPORT, BECAUSE THIS DOESN'T PAY THE BILLS, BUT HE HAS GIVEN A LOT OF HIS TIME. AND LEON ALSO THE SAME, AS AN ATTORNEY IN MEXICO CITY. BUT THEY ARE LEADING A MASSIVE EFFORT WITH THE RAPPORTEURS, AND WE THANK THEM AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN FOR WHAT THEY DO. HOWEVER, TO R ALL OF US, FOR THEIR SAKE AND OUR SAKE, WE NED TO GET THIS TO A CLOSURE. WHY DUBLIN THEN BECOMES IMPORTANT. DUBLIN BECOMES THE MOMENT WHEN WE CAN HAVE A THOUGHTFUL ASSESSMENT OF WHAT'S LEFT ON THE TABLE, WHAT NEEDS TO BE DECIDED, AND TO HOPEFULLY COME TO A COLLECTIVE, I WOULD SAY, BROAD AGREEMENT ON WHAT IN BUSINESS WE WOULD CALL THE TERM SHEET OR THE FRAMEWORK OF AN AGREEMENT. WE WON'T BE ABLE TO WRITE DOWN EVERY FINAL WORD ON THIS, BUT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO AGREE ON THE BROAD FRAMEWORK ON ACCOUNTABILITY. AND IF WE CAN DO THAT BY END OF DUBLIN AND WE'RE ALL HERE BY THE THOUSANDS TO DO THAT, THEN I THINK WE HAVE, BETWEEN END OF DUBLIN AND END OF NOVEMBER IN GOOD FAITH TO WORK TOGETHER TO WRAP THIS UP.
THAT'S THE PLAN. THAT'S THE BEST CASE PLAN. AND I HOPE IT IS THE PLAN BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER PLANS RIGHT NOW. WE DON'T HAVE ANY ROOM FOR ANY OTHER PLANS. SO THAT BRINGS ME TO WHAT IS LEFT TO BE DECIDED. WHAT IS THERE. IN MY PERSONAL CAPACITY AS SOMEONE WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL VERY INVOLVED AND ENGAGED IN THIS PROCESS BUT ALSO RECOGNIZING THE FACT THAT I AM LEAVING, AND, THEREFORE, I HAVE NO PARTICULAR POWER POINT HERE. I AM HERE SIMPLY TO SHARE MY UNDERSTANDING AND MY KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT I'M WATCHING AND TO HELP US ALL CONTINUE WITH OUR COMMON PRINCIPLES TO SOLVE THIS ISSUE. SO I BUILT THIS DECK. IT TOOK ME ABOUT 52 PERSONAL HOURS, WHICH I DON'T TYPICALLY HAVE SO THIS WAS MY EVENINGS AND MICROPROCESSOR NIGHTS TO BUILD THIS DECK IN ORDER TO HELP US JUST UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE. THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A VIEWPOINT. THIS IS A DECK. AND WHERE I FELT THERE ARE DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS, I PUT MULTIPLE APPROACHES. BUT I URGE YOU TO READ IT AND UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE IT MIGHT GIVE US A WAY OUT THIS WEEK TO FINISH OUR WORK. THE ONLY THING I'D LIKE TO SAY IS TO EMPHASIZE THE KEY POINTS THAT ARE LEFT FOR DECISION-MAKING. THE FIRST POINT IS HOW DO WE REACH -- HOW DO WE CREATE AT ICANN A BELIEVABLE, TRUSTED APPEAL MECHANISM FOR THE COMMUNITY? HOW DO WE DO THAT? SO WHEN THE COMMUNITY IS IN DISAGREEMENT WITH A BOARD DECISION, HOW DOES THE COMMUNITY EFFECTIVELY APPEAL THAT DECISION? OKAY? THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. TODAY THE COMMUNITY HAS NO BINDING MECHANISM OVER THE BOARD. AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT MY DECK IN SECTION 9, SECTION 9 CLEARLY SHOWS, WHOEVER MANAGING THE SLIDES, IF YOU COULD GO TO SECTION 9. SECTION 9, AND I THINK IT'S EASIER TO READ THE OTHER WAY IF YOU CAN, BUT IN SECTION 9, THERE IS A DESCRIPTION OF A BINDING ARBITRATION MECHANISM THAT IS ESSENTIALLY TAKEN FROM THE CCWG ACCOUNTABILITY PROPOSAL SECTION 5.1, WHICH IS MAKE AN IRP FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT IS BINDING. MAKE SURE ICANN PAYS FOR THE PARTY BRINGING THE IRP IN THE COMMUNITY, SO THERE'S NO QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. MAKE SURE THAT THIS IRP HAS A STANDING PANEL OF JUDGES THAT IS EXPERT AND AVAILABLE SO WE DON'T SPEND SIX MONTHS LOOKING FOR THEM EVERY TIME. MAKE SURE THAT THIS IRP IS EFFICIENT. WE DON'T WANT TO WAIT SIX YEARS FOR A DECISION. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THIS DECISION QUICKLY SO THIS IS WHAT THIS DECISION PROPOSES. I THINK THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ICANN -- AND I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR THEM HERE. I'M SPEAKING IN MY PERSONAL CAPACITY -- HAS ACCEPTED THIS MODEL. AND THAT'S A GOOD THING. AND I'LL BE CANDID WITH YOU. UNTIL NOW -- AND IF IT WASN'T THANKS TO THE EFFORT OF THE PEOPLE HERE TO MY RIGHT AND THEIR -- NOT JUST THEM, BUT OF COURSE THE CCWG WITH THEIR LEADERSHIP, THE BOARD OF ICANN HAD NOT EVER ACCEPTED A BINDING ARBITRATION. LET'S BE SUPER CLEAR ON THAT. THIS IS ING ARBITRATION MECHANISM. AND ITS DETAILS COME FROM THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMUNITY. NOT FROM THE BOARD. THIS IS A VERY POWERFUL NEW PROGRESS. AND THAT MEANS IF THE COMMUNITY IS IN DISAGREEMENT TO THE BOARD, IT HAS A RELIABLE MECHANISM TO GO TO A ARBITRATION COURT -- EXCUSE ME TO GO TO A PANEL WHICH IS STANDING AND GET A JUDGMENT, AN AWARD, JUDGMENT AGAINST A BOARD DECISION. NOW, THE CORE, THE COMMUNITY IS WORRIED WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE GET THIS? WHAT IF THE ICANN BOARD FLAUNTS IT? OR WHAT IF THE ICANN BOARD DOESN'T SHOW UP TO THE BINDING ARBITRATION? WELL, FIRST THEY SAY HERE VERY CLEARLY, IF ICANN CHOOSES NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COMMUNITY IRP DECISIONS, THE DECISION IS STILL BINDING. AND WE WILL PUT THAT IN THE BYLAWS. WE WILL MAKE SURE IT IS ENFORCED SO THAT THE COMMUNITY ALWAYS GETS A BINDING JUDGMENT THERE. THEN. NEXT THING BECOMES WELL, WHAT IF WE HAVE THE BINDING JUDGMENT AND ICANN DOES NOT ABIDE BY IT? WHICH COULD HAPPEN. I THINK IT'S REMOTE. IT'S NEVER HAPPENED. WE'VE NEVER HAD A JUDGMENT AGAINST ICANN THAT WAS NOT ABIDED BY. BUT IT COULD HAPPEN. AND IF I WERE IN YOUR SEATS OR IN THE COMMUNITY SEATS, I'D SAY LOOK, I WANT BELTS AND SUSPENDERS. IF YOU TELL ME THAT'S A BINDING AWARD, I NEED IT TO BE ENFORCEABLE. THE WAY TO ENFORCE A BINDING AWARD ON A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION IS TO GO TO A CALIFORNIA COURT AND ENFORCE IT. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT. NOW, I THINK THE CHANCES OF THIS ARE 00.00001%. BUT IT'S AN ENFORCEMENT. IT'S NECESSARY. WE NEED TO HAVE IT BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY HAVE ALREADY SAID WE NEED ENFORCEABILITY. SO THE ENFORCEABILITY IS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 15, APPROACH A. THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO REACH ENFORCEABILITY. THE COMMUNITY IS DISCUSSING A MODEL CALLED "THE DESIGNATOR" WHICH IS A MODEL TO ENFORCE, TO GO TO COURT AND SAY I'M A DESIGNATOR AND I WANT TO ENFORCE A BINDING AWARD. THAT'S POSSIBLE. THAT'S ONE WAY TO DO IT. THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DO IT. I'LL GIVE YOU A WAY THAT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN DISCUSSED IN MY PAPER. WE COULD IN OUR BYLAWS SAY THAT OUR OMBUDSMAN IS AN ENFORCER. AND OUR OMBUDSMAN BECOMES THE SINGLE DESIGNATOR THAT COULD SHOW UP AND ENFORCE ANY DECISION. WE CAN DO THAT TOO. THERE ARE MANY POSSIBILITIES. IT IS NOT FOR ME TO DECIDE WHAT RIGHT WAY TO GO. I THINK WE NEED TO RELY ON THE CCWG AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING HARD TO FIND A GOOD WAY TO ENFORCE. THE LAST THING I WANT TO BRING UP TO YOUR ATTENTION IS BOARD REMOVAL. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO UNDERSTAND THE CORPORATE WORLD, WHICH I COME FROM, IN THE CORPORATE WORLD, WHEN THE SHAREHOLDERS OF A CORPORATION ARE UPSET WITH THE ACTIONS OF A BOARD, WHAT DO THEY DO? THEY REMOVE THE BOARD. SHE HAVE A SHAREHOLDERS MEETING AND REMOVE THE BOARD OR REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS. SO, IF YOU LOOK AT MY SECTION 4, THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS. LET'S AGREE ON A PRINCIPLE. IS IT IMPORTANT THAT THE COMMUNITY BE ABLE TO REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS? DO WE BELIEVE THAT? I'LL SPEAK FOR MYSELF. I THINK YES. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITY TO BE ABLE TO REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS. THE QUESTION IS: HOW AND WHAT ARE THE RULES AROUND THAT? SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF I'M SITTING AT AN ICANN BOARD MEETING AND I'M ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS NOW, I JUST HAPPEN TO HAVE THE EASY SEAT. I'M JUST THE CEO SO I GET A BOARD SEAT. EVERYBODY ELSE HALLS TO GO THROUGH MANY, MANY COMMUNITY PROCESSS TO GET THERE. BUT MY FELLOW 15 BOARD MEMBERS, THEY SIT AT THE BOARD MEETING. WHAT IS OUR ULTIMATE ROLE? OUR ULTIMATE ROLE IS TO ACT AS THE PROTECTOR OF THE MISSION AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ICANN. THAT IS OUR ULTIMATE ROLE. IN FACT, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ICANN IS THE ONLY PLACE ULTIMATELY WHERE AFTER THINGS GO THROUGH YOU -- AND CLEARLY, GOVERNMENTS HAVE A BIG ROLE IN ENSURING THE PUBLIC PERFECT. BUT ONCE IT GETS TO A DECISION POINT, THE BOARD, WHICH INCLUDES PEOPLE FROM THE BUSINESS AND FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF ICANN, MUST UPHOLD THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IF THEY DON'T, WE LOST THAT OPPORTUNITY. NOW, IF I'M SITTING AT THE BOARD SEAT AND I KNOW THAT IF I DON'T DO WHAT MY COMMUNITY TELLS ME, MY NECK WILL BE CUT TOMORROW MORNING, HOW WILL I REALLY PAY ATTENTION TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST? THEREFORE, IF WE WANT TO REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS, WE SHOULD REMOVE THEM BECAUSE THEY DID NOT ADHERE TO THE BYLAWS, THE MISSION OF ICANN. AN SO OR AC CAN REMOVE THEIR BOARD MEMBER BUT THERE HAS TO BE A PROCESS. IT CANNOT BE THAT WE JUST REMOVE THEM BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T VOTE OUR WAY. THEN SUDDENLY, WE HAVE A BEHOLDEN, CAPTIVE BOARD. THAT'S NOT HOW WE WILL PRESERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ICANN. SO YES, LET'S HAVE BOARD REMOVAL. HERE WE PROPOSED SEVERAL IDEAS. EVERY BOARD MEMBER COULD SIGN A CONTRACT BEFORE THEY BECOME A BOARD MEMBER. AND THE CONTRACT INCLUDES CONDITIONS THAT THE COMMUNITY COULD SET. FOR EXAMPLE, REMEMBER THE BINDING ARBITRATION I JUST DISCUSSED? IF A BINDING ARBITRATION AWARD SAYS ICANN SHOULD DO X AND THE BOARD MEMBER VOTES AGAINST IT, YOU COULD PUT IN THEIR CONTRACT THAT IF THEY DO THAT, THEY MUST RESIGN. INSTANTLY. THEY'RE OFF THE BOARD. SO WE COULD PUT CONDITIONS TO HOLD BOARD MEMBERS TO THE THINGS WE CARE ABOUT. WE COULD ALSO MAKE SURE THAT THE BINDING ARBITRATION CAN REMOVE A BOARD MEMBER. WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THAT BINDING ARBITRATION, AS I JUST DESCRIBED BEFORE, OF COURSE, IS ENFORCEABLE. SO THEN YOU GIVE THE ULTIMATE CONTROL OF THAT BOARD MEMBER. I THINK THE CCWG IS MOVING RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OF BRINGING OUR COMMUNITY TOGETHER AROUND COMMON SOLUTIONS. I AM CONFIDENT THAT WITHIN A FEW DAYS WE WILL ALL BE CLEAR ON WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS. I THINK WE ARE IN SYNC. IN CLOSING, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SAY THIS: AS I LEAVE ICANN AND PREPARE TO GO, WHAT AM I MOST WORRIED ABOUT IN THIS PROCESS? WHAT IS THE THING THAT KEEPS ME UP AT NIGHT? WHEN I MEET MANY OF YOUR GOVERNMENTS AND I WAS JUST AT THE ITU MEETING IN BUDAPEST AND MET MANY, MANY MINISTERS AND GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS, WHAT THEY ASKED ME, WHAT ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT NOW THAT YOU'RE LEAVING? WHAT IS TOP OF YOUR MIND? I'LL BE CANDID WITH YOU. I AM VERY WORRIED THAT WE, AT THE END OF THIS ACCOUNTABILITY REFORM, END UP DAMAGING THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL. IF WE DAMAGE THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL, WHICH HAD STOOD -- HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME, AND CREATE ANY STRUCTURES THAT ACTUALLY MAKE US CAPTURABLE -- AND BY THE WAY, WE ALL THINK OF CAPTURE WRONGLY AS SOMETHING GOVERNMENTS COULD DO. FRANKLY, GOVERNMENTS AT ICANN HAVE BEEN PROBABLY THE MOST COOPERATIVE TO MAKE THIS PROCESS CONCLUDE PROPERLY. I AM MOST WORRIED ALSO OF SHIFTING CAPTURE TO SPECIAL INTERESTS. WE MUST MAKE SURE -- AND YOU GOVERNMENTS, MUST HELP US MAKE SURE THAT ICANN'S STRENGTH IS ITS INDEPENDENCE. ITS INDEPENDENCE. IF WE LOSE THAT INDEPENDENCE, WE LOSE THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL, WE LOSE EVERYTHING WE HAVE. WE MUST REMAIN INDEPENDENT. INDEPENDENT OF CAPTURE, INDEPENDENT OF SPECIAL INTERESTS, AND INSTEAD SERVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THAT IS MY BIGGEST WORRY. AND MY CHANCE, AND YOUR CHANCE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS WEEK, IS TO HELP US MAKE SURE WE STICK TO THESE PRINCIPLES AND WE KEEP ICANN DIVERSE, INCLUSIVE, OPEN, AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER. THANK YOU.
CHAIR SCHNEIDER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, FADI. I NOTE THAT KAVOUSS, OUR COLLEAGUE FROM IRAN HAD TO LEAVE THE MEETING BUT WILL COME BACK. SO HE ANNOUNCED THAT HE WILL WANT TO TAKE THE FLOOR. SO IN CASE I FORGET IT, PLEASE REMIND ME. AND I NOTE ALSO THAT MATHIEU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING AND THEN I GIVE THE FLOOR TO ALL OF YOU, THANK YOU.
MATTHIEU WEILL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIR. NO, I'LL SPEAK IN ENGLISH FOR THIS ONE. AS YOU WILL HAVE ALL NOTED, THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF DUPLICATION BETWEEN FADI'S SPEECH AND THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO CORRECT A FEW POINTS ABOUT THE WAY FADI HAS CHARACTERIZED THE WORK OF OUR GROUP WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT FOR THIS ROOM TO BE AWARE OF. PLAINTIFF NUMBER ONE, THE SLIDE DECK THAT FADI HAS INTRODUCED, GIVEN THAT WE'VE HAD MORE THAN 14 HOURS OF MEETING ALREADY IS OUTDATED. I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THAT YOU REFER TO OLGA'S PRESENTATION AS WELL AS THE ONE WE'VE JUST PROVIDED. BECAUSE YES, THINGS ARE MOVING FAST. SO FOCUSING ON THE MOST RECENT MATERIAL CAN BE VERY IMPORTANT TO ENSURE YOU HAVE EFFICIENT DEBATES AND DISCUSSIONS. SECONDLY, FADI REFERRED TO OUR GROUP AS INVESTIGATING A DESIGNATOR MODEL. THAT IS NOT ADEQUATELY CAPTURING WHERE WE ARE NOW. WHERE WE ARE NOW IS THAT OUR SECOND REPORT IS FOCUSED ON A SOLE MEMBERSHIP MODEL AND THERE HAS BEEN WORK. AND THE WAY TO INVESTIGATE HOW A SOLE DESIGNATOR MODEL WOULD LOOK LIKE BUT IN NO WAY IS OUR GROUP AT A POINT WHERE IT HAS BEEN SHIFTING ITS FOCUS ON SOMETHING ELSE. THERE IS -- IT'S ALSO USEFUL TO REPORT THAT THE ARBITRATION MODEL THAT HAS BEEN PART OF THE BOARD COMMENT IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT HAS BEEN ASSESSED. THERE IS -- THERE HAS BEEN LEGAL REVIEWS WORK IN THE WORK PARTIES ON THIS. AND I THINK A SUMMARY COULD BE THERE ARE SERIOUS LEGAL UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT ITS EFFICIENCY. THERE'S EVEN DEBATE AMONG LAWYERS. THAT'S WHY I'M MENTIONING UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT LEGAL EFFICIENCY. AND FINALLY, I THINK THE DISCUSSION ON THE BOARD MEMBER REMOVAL WAS INTERESTING AND WE GOT FADI'S PERSONAL VIEW ON THIS. BUT IT'S WORTH NOTEING THAT THIS VERY MOFEN WE'VE MADE TREMENDOUS PROGRESS WITH A LOT OF BOARD MEMBERS BEING PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN EXPRESSING THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE WAY FORWARD THAT WE HAVE FOUND, SO I THINK THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE PROGRESS WE'RE MAKING. SO I WILL JOIN FADI IN SAYING THAT WE HAVE LITTLE TIME. THIS IS REALLY THE MOMENT TO ENGAGE, DISCUSS, AND DISCUSS ON THE BASIS OF FACTS THAT ARE ACCURATE AND AVOID SPREADING ANY UNCERTAINTIES THAT MIGHT MAKE THE DECISION HARDER TO MAKE. AND THIS IS OUR COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl Date: Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 4:52 PM Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fadi on our work
FADI CHEHADE: THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME AND ALL OF US TO COME AND TAKE SOME TIME WITH YOU. I WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH THREE SUBSTANTIVE POINTS.
THE FIRST ONE, WHATEVER WE DO, MAKE YOUR KEY PRINCIPLE THE AVOIDANCE OF CAPTURE. IT IS CRITICAL. IT IS HOW WE HOLD TO THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL. IF WE ARE CAPTURED OR IF WE CREATE A MODEL THAT ALLOWS FOR CAPTURE BY SPECIAL INTERESTS OR SPECIAL AGENDAS, IN MY OPINION, THE ICANN WE WERE ALL HANDED WOULD HAVE BEEN RUINED. This principle is what made ICANN of what it's today, so advocating for it is actually advocating for the continuation of its current form, if that's what the community wants. Although the current model was successful in avoiding capture from the different parts of the community, it hasn't prevented the capture from the corporation itself and from the corporation becoming more interested in its own survival than on serving its mission. But besides this particular special interest, which is neutral in nature, I agree that it prevented capture from the stakeholder sectors, which is indeed remarkable. TWO, WATCH CAREFULLY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES THAT REFOCUS AND ANCHOR ICANN IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS AS OPPOSED TO CONTINUING THE PROJECT OF GLOBALIZATION WE ALL STARTED. WATCH FOR THAT. IF ALL ROADS END THERE, THAT'S ONE THING. BUT IF ALL ROADS START AT THE COURTS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. SO THIS IS THE DISTINCTION. Agree with this precaution, but it's curious that the board proposal actually increases that dependency. Rubens
For those who did not read the whole excerpt from the transcript, please note that Mathieu’s response is included in there, too. Thomas
Am 17.10.2015 um 17:27 schrieb Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>:
Here were Fadi’s remarks to GAC:
FADI CHEHADE: THANK YOU, THOMAS, AND THANK YOU TO THE GAC CHAIRS AND VICE CHAIRS HERE WHO INVITED ME TO -- WHO ACCEPTED MY OFFER TO COME AND SPEAK.
I THINK MANY OF YOU MUST BE, BY NOW, TIRED BY THE NUMBER OF WORDS THAT WE ALL NEED TO SIFT THROUGH TO FIGURE OUT A WAY FORWARD. I AM, TOO. IT'S A LOT OF WORK FOR MANY OF US TO CATCH UP WITH EVERYTHING. AND I DO REALIZE THAT, UNLIKE ME, MOST OF YOU HAVE OTHER JOBS TO DO ALSO, AND A BIG PORTFOLIO OF ACTIVITIES TO DO, AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO KEEP UP WITH EVERYTHING HERE.
I MUST SAY THAT MOST OF YOU KNOW THAT I WILL BE LEAVING ICANN IN A FEW MONTHS, AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, I'M -- I HAVE, FRANKLY, NO STAKE HERE OTHER THAN TO CONTINUE STICKING TO THE PRINCIPLES THAT I SHARED WITH YOU FROM MY VERY FIRST MEETING IN PRAGUE, THE PRINCIPLES OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER COMMUNITY, PRINCIPLES OF WORKING PARTY TOGETHER WITH RESPECT, TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT THE WORLD NEEDS: A PLACE WHERE ALL STAKEHOLDERS COME TOGETHER AND ACTUALLY PRODUCE REAL SOLUTIONS. I THINK THE WORLD RIGHT NOW IS VERY, VERY DISAPPOINTED WITH ITS INSTITUTIONS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE EDELMAN TRUST INDEX WHICH HAS BEEN COMING OUT EVERY YEAR, EVERY SINGLE TYPE OF INSTITUTION ON THE PLANET IS LOSING TRUST FROM ITS PEOPLE. GOVERNMENTS, BUSINESSES, EVEN ACADEMIA IS STARTING TO DROP. NGOs, WAY DOWN. THIS IS THE REALITY OF THE WORLD WE ARE LIVING IN NOW. PEOPLE ARE EMPOWERED. THE INTERNET INFORMS, AND TRUST IS WANING. IT'S A DIFFICULT PLACE TO BE.
AND IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS ENVIRONMENT, ICANN OPENED UP ITS ENTIRE CONCEPT AS A MULTISTAKEHOLDER GOVERNANCE PLACE AND SAID LET'S MAKE IT BETTER. AND IN THE PROCESS, WE HAVE SEEN ENORMOUS WORK DONE BY HOUR COMMUNITY, LED BY THE THREE CHAIRS SITTING TO MY RIGHT WHOM YOU MET, THAT HAVE DONE, IN MY OPINION, A REMARKABLE JOB, BECAUSE THIS IS A DIFFICULT TASK. IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT TASK. I WAS THREE WEEKS AGO HAVING LUNCH WITH ALL THE PROFESSORS OF THE KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT AT HARVARD. THEY WERE ASKING ME HOW WAS IT GOING. HOW WAS ICANN'S ACCOUNTABILITY DISCUSSIONS GOING. AND THEY WERE SHOCKED BY HOW FAR WE'VE GOTTEN AND WHAT WE'RE DOING BECAUSE THE EXPERIMENT YOU'RE INVOLVED IN IS GROUND BREAKING. THERE IS NOTHING LIKE IT. AND THEY ADMITTED THAT NEITHER GOVERNMENTS NOR THEM AS ACADEMIC PROFESSORS OF GOVERNANCE HAVE EVER FACED SOMETHING LIKE THIS WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE A MODEL TO SHARE POWER BETWEEN VERY DIVERSE, VERY BROAD INTERESTS IN ONE PLACE WITHOUT THE POWER OF A FLAG AND WITHOUT THE POWER OF A LEGAL ENVIRONMENT. WE ARE DOING IT AS A COMMUNITY. THIS IS DIFFICULT STUFF.
SO AS WE FACE THIS DIFFICULTY, WE NEED TO STAY CALM AND WE NEED TO STAY COMPOSED, AND WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT ALL OF US ARE NOW EXPOSED TO THE SAUSAGE FACTORY. WE'RE WATCHING HOW DECISIONS ARE GETTING MADE AND FRAMEWORKS ARE BEING BUILT. AND THAT'S NOT EASY.
SOME OF US ARE SAYING THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL IS FALLING APART. IF WE SAY THAT, THEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL IS. THIS IS THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL. THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. WHAT THESE THREE HAVE BEEN PRESIDING OVER IS PRECISELY WHAT THEY SHOULD BE PRESIDING OVER: DIALOGUE, DISCUSSION, VIGOROUS, PASSIONATE POSITIONS. THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. YOU ALL KNOW THAT. YOU'VE SEEN IT IN OTHER PLACES, AND IT'S HAPPENING HERE. THAT'S NO DIFFERENT.
SO I WANT US TO START BY BEING VERY CONFIDENT THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT PROCESS THAT WE STARTED TOGETHER. THIS IS EXACTLY HOW OUTCOMES HAPPEN IN A MULTISTAKEHOLDER ENVIRONMENT. AND NOW GOVERNMENTS, LIKE YOU, WATCH THIS AND SAY, "THIS IS NOT HOW WE NORMALLY WORK. THIS IS NOT HOW WE EXPECT THINGS TO WORK." BUT THIS IS OKAY. THIS IS AN INVITATION AS MANY OF YOU, LIKE KAVOUSS AND OTHERS HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROCESS, ARE WATCHING AND BUILDING WITHIN THAT PROCESS. I AM VERY CERTAIN THAT BY THE END OF DUBLIN, WE WILL BE IN A BETTER PLACE IN TERMS OF CLARITY AS TO HOW THIS PROCESS WILL MOVE FORWARD. AND WE HAVE TO. WE HAVE TO. IF WE DON'T, THEN I THINK THE TIMELINE THAT THE COMMUNITY SET FOR THE TRANSITION, WHICH IS FOR THE CONTRACT WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO END ON SEPTEMBER 30th, 2016, THAT TIMELINE WHICH THE COMMUNITY SET WILL NO LONGER BE POSSIBLE. SO THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU -- FOR US TO NOTE. THE COMMUNITY SET A TIMELINE. THE CONTRACT WAS EXTENDED FOR ONE YEAR ACCORDING TO THAT TIMELINE, IF WE DO NOT GET A PROPOSAL IN THE HANDS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, THAT TIMELINE IS IN GREAT JEOPARDY. IT DOESN'T MEAN BE WE CAN'T MAKE THE TRANSITION IN 2017, '18 OR '19. THERE'S NO DEADLINE. BUT THE TIMELINE WE SET WILL BE IN JEOPARDY. NOW, HOW DO WE GET TO A PROPOSAL AT THE END OF 2016? WELL, LET'S BACK OFF THE STEPS. THE BOARD IS TO HAND THE GOVERNMENT THE PROPOSAL. TO DO THAT, THE BOARD NEEDS TO RECEIVE THE PROPOSAL. WHO DOES THE BOARD RECEIVE THE PROPOSAL FROM? NOT THEM. NOT THE ICG; RIGHT? THE PROPOSAL HAS TO BE FIRST GONE THROUGH THE CHARTERING ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING YOU, AND RECEIVE APPROVAL. ONCE YOU APPROVE IT, WE WILL THEN TAKE IT AND GIVE IT TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. NOW, YOU NEED TIME TO REVIEW IT AND APPROVE IT. LET'S ASSUME THAT WILL TAKE YOU A MONTH. IS THAT -- PROBABLY IN GOVERNMENT TERMS, THAT'S TIME TO MAKE A QUICK READ, BUT WE WILL NOT HAVE MORE THAN A MONTH TO DO THAT. I'M BEING CANDID WITH YOU. SO IF YOU GET THIS BY END OF NOVEMBER, THEN YOU HAVE A MONTH TO LOOK AT IT, AND THAT'S THE ONLY MONTH WE HAVE THEN TO TAKE IT AND PASS IT ON TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. NOW, FOR THEM TO FINISH BY END OF NOVEMBER, WE NEED TWO PARTS. WE NEED THE ICG PROPOSAL, AND WE KNEELED THE CCWG PROPOSAL. THE ICG PROPOSAL IS ALL BUT DONE. SO WE HAVE NO DANGER OF TIMELINE THERE. THE CCWG PROPOSAL IS NOT DONE. THEREFORE, THE FOCUS RIGHT NOW IS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THAT DONE BY THE END OF NOVEMBER SO IT CAN COME TO YOU AND HOPEFULLY, WITH YOUR HELP, NOT YOU, JUST THE GAC, ALL THE CHARTERING ORGANIZATIONS, WE CAN REVIEW IT, SUPPORT IT AND THEN HAND IT TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BY THE END OF THIS YEAR. THIS GIVES THE NTIA THE TIME IT NEEDS TO REVIEW IT, TO HOPEFULLY GIVE US THE GO AHEAD, AND THEN ALLOW MY TEAM TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSAL. AND PEOPLE TELL US, "WHY AREN'T YOU START STARTING TO IMPLEMENT TODAY?" WELL, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A PROPOSAL. WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO IMPLEMENT? WELL, THERE ARE SOME PARTS OF THE PROPOSAL YOU CAN START TO IMPLEMENT. FINE. AND AND WE HAVE. AND THIS AFTERNOON AKRAM WILL DESCRIBE SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES WE HAVE STARTED TO IMPLEMENT. SO I'M JUST GIVING YOU THIS PICTURE SO YOU CAN APPRECIATE HOW THESE DOMINOES WILL FIT SO THE GOVERNMENT HAS ITS TIME IN JANUARY, FEBRUARY TO REVIEW THE PROPOSAL. REMEMBER, THERE IS A BILL IN CONGRESS CALLED THE DOTCOM ACT THAT HAS PASSED THE HOUSE BUT HAS NOT PASSED THE SENATE. IF IT PASSES THE SENATE OR IF IT'S INCLUDED IN SOME KIND OF PACKAGE AT THE END OF THIS YEAR IN THE GOVERNMENT OMNIBUS PROPOSAL, THEN IT WILL BECOME LAW. AND IF IT BECOMES LAW, THEN THAT BILL ALONE WILL PAD MORE MONTHS ON LARRY'S WORK, BECAUSE THAT BILL SAYS THAT LARRY WILL NEED TO CERTIFY THAT OUR PROPOSAL MEETS THE U.S. NTIA REQUIREMENTS. AND ONCE HE CERTIFIES, HE STARTS A CLOCK OF A COUPLE OF MONTHS OR SO FOR CONGRESS TO ENTER INTO DIALOGUE WITH HIM. SO THESE ARE THE FACTS THAT WE ALL NEED TO APPRECIATE, ALL OF WHICH POINT TO THE WORK UPON US RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS HOW DO WE GET THROUGH THIS VERY IMPORTANT PHASE OF GETTING THE WORK OF THE CCWG COMPLETED BY END OF NOVEMBER. HOW FAR IS END OF NOVEMBER, LEON? THAT'S LIKE FIVE WEEKS? SIX WEEKS?
LEON SANCHEZ: NOT ENOUGH. FADI CHEHADE: NOT ENOUGH. SO WE'RE FIVE, SIX WEEKS AWAY FROM THOSE FOLKS WHO HAVE DEDICATED INCREDIBLE, INCREDIBLE HOURS OF THEIR TIME. THEY ALL HAVE DAY JOBS, BY THE WAY, IN CASE YOU DIDN'T KNOW. MATHIEU RUNS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE LARGEST ccTLDs IN THE WORLD IN FRANCE. THOMAS HAS A FAMILY AND A BUSINESS TO SUPPORT, BECAUSE THIS DOESN'T PAY THE BILLS, BUT HE HAS GIVEN A LOT OF HIS TIME. AND LEON ALSO THE SAME, AS AN ATTORNEY IN MEXICO CITY. BUT THEY ARE LEADING A MASSIVE EFFORT WITH THE RAPPORTEURS, AND WE THANK THEM AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN FOR WHAT THEY DO. HOWEVER, TO R ALL OF US, FOR THEIR SAKE AND OUR SAKE, WE NED TO GET THIS TO A CLOSURE. WHY DUBLIN THEN BECOMES IMPORTANT. DUBLIN BECOMES THE MOMENT WHEN WE CAN HAVE A THOUGHTFUL ASSESSMENT OF WHAT'S LEFT ON THE TABLE, WHAT NEEDS TO BE DECIDED, AND TO HOPEFULLY COME TO A COLLECTIVE, I WOULD SAY, BROAD AGREEMENT ON WHAT IN BUSINESS WE WOULD CALL THE TERM SHEET OR THE FRAMEWORK OF AN AGREEMENT. WE WON'T BE ABLE TO WRITE DOWN EVERY FINAL WORD ON THIS, BUT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO AGREE ON THE BROAD FRAMEWORK ON ACCOUNTABILITY. AND IF WE CAN DO THAT BY END OF DUBLIN AND WE'RE ALL HERE BY THE THOUSANDS TO DO THAT, THEN I THINK WE HAVE, BETWEEN END OF DUBLIN AND END OF NOVEMBER IN GOOD FAITH TO WORK TOGETHER TO WRAP THIS UP.
THAT'S THE PLAN. THAT'S THE BEST CASE PLAN. AND I HOPE IT IS THE PLAN BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER PLANS RIGHT NOW. WE DON'T HAVE ANY ROOM FOR ANY OTHER PLANS. SO THAT BRINGS ME TO WHAT IS LEFT TO BE DECIDED. WHAT IS THERE. IN MY PERSONAL CAPACITY AS SOMEONE WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL VERY INVOLVED AND ENGAGED IN THIS PROCESS BUT ALSO RECOGNIZING THE FACT THAT I AM LEAVING, AND, THEREFORE, I HAVE NO PARTICULAR POWER POINT HERE. I AM HERE SIMPLY TO SHARE MY UNDERSTANDING AND MY KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT I'M WATCHING AND TO HELP US ALL CONTINUE WITH OUR COMMON PRINCIPLES TO SOLVE THIS ISSUE. SO I BUILT THIS DECK. IT TOOK ME ABOUT 52 PERSONAL HOURS, WHICH I DON'T TYPICALLY HAVE SO THIS WAS MY EVENINGS AND MICROPROCESSOR NIGHTS TO BUILD THIS DECK IN ORDER TO HELP US JUST UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE. THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A VIEWPOINT. THIS IS A DECK. AND WHERE I FELT THERE ARE DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS, I PUT MULTIPLE APPROACHES. BUT I URGE YOU TO READ IT AND UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE IT MIGHT GIVE US A WAY OUT THIS WEEK TO FINISH OUR WORK. THE ONLY THING I'D LIKE TO SAY IS TO EMPHASIZE THE KEY POINTS THAT ARE LEFT FOR DECISION-MAKING. THE FIRST POINT IS HOW DO WE REACH -- HOW DO WE CREATE AT ICANN A BELIEVABLE, TRUSTED APPEAL MECHANISM FOR THE COMMUNITY? HOW DO WE DO THAT? SO WHEN THE COMMUNITY IS IN DISAGREEMENT WITH A BOARD DECISION, HOW DOES THE COMMUNITY EFFECTIVELY APPEAL THAT DECISION? OKAY? THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. TODAY THE COMMUNITY HAS NO BINDING MECHANISM OVER THE BOARD. AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT MY DECK IN SECTION 9, SECTION 9 CLEARLY SHOWS, WHOEVER MANAGING THE SLIDES, IF YOU COULD GO TO SECTION 9. SECTION 9, AND I THINK IT'S EASIER TO READ THE OTHER WAY IF YOU CAN, BUT IN SECTION 9, THERE IS A DESCRIPTION OF A BINDING ARBITRATION MECHANISM THAT IS ESSENTIALLY TAKEN FROM THE CCWG ACCOUNTABILITY PROPOSAL SECTION 5.1, WHICH IS MAKE AN IRP FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT IS BINDING. MAKE SURE ICANN PAYS FOR THE PARTY BRINGING THE IRP IN THE COMMUNITY, SO THERE'S NO QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. MAKE SURE THAT THIS IRP HAS A STANDING PANEL OF JUDGES THAT IS EXPERT AND AVAILABLE SO WE DON'T SPEND SIX MONTHS LOOKING FOR THEM EVERY TIME. MAKE SURE THAT THIS IRP IS EFFICIENT. WE DON'T WANT TO WAIT SIX YEARS FOR A DECISION. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THIS DECISION QUICKLY SO THIS IS WHAT THIS DECISION PROPOSES. I THINK THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ICANN -- AND I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR THEM HERE. I'M SPEAKING IN MY PERSONAL CAPACITY -- HAS ACCEPTED THIS MODEL. AND THAT'S A GOOD THING. AND I'LL BE CANDID WITH YOU. UNTIL NOW -- AND IF IT WASN'T THANKS TO THE EFFORT OF THE PEOPLE HERE TO MY RIGHT AND THEIR -- NOT JUST THEM, BUT OF COURSE THE CCWG WITH THEIR LEADERSHIP, THE BOARD OF ICANN HAD NOT EVER ACCEPTED A BINDING ARBITRATION. LET'S BE SUPER CLEAR ON THAT. THIS IS ING ARBITRATION MECHANISM. AND ITS DETAILS COME FROM THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMUNITY. NOT FROM THE BOARD. THIS IS A VERY POWERFUL NEW PROGRESS. AND THAT MEANS IF THE COMMUNITY IS IN DISAGREEMENT TO THE BOARD, IT HAS A RELIABLE MECHANISM TO GO TO A ARBITRATION COURT -- EXCUSE ME TO GO TO A PANEL WHICH IS STANDING AND GET A JUDGMENT, AN AWARD, JUDGMENT AGAINST A BOARD DECISION. NOW, THE CORE, THE COMMUNITY IS WORRIED WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE GET THIS? WHAT IF THE ICANN BOARD FLAUNTS IT? OR WHAT IF THE ICANN BOARD DOESN'T SHOW UP TO THE BINDING ARBITRATION? WELL, FIRST THEY SAY HERE VERY CLEARLY, IF ICANN CHOOSES NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COMMUNITY IRP DECISIONS, THE DECISION IS STILL BINDING. AND WE WILL PUT THAT IN THE BYLAWS. WE WILL MAKE SURE IT IS ENFORCED SO THAT THE COMMUNITY ALWAYS GETS A BINDING JUDGMENT THERE. THEN. NEXT THING BECOMES WELL, WHAT IF WE HAVE THE BINDING JUDGMENT AND ICANN DOES NOT ABIDE BY IT? WHICH COULD HAPPEN. I THINK IT'S REMOTE. IT'S NEVER HAPPENED. WE'VE NEVER HAD A JUDGMENT AGAINST ICANN THAT WAS NOT ABIDED BY. BUT IT COULD HAPPEN. AND IF I WERE IN YOUR SEATS OR IN THE COMMUNITY SEATS, I'D SAY LOOK, I WANT BELTS AND SUSPENDERS. IF YOU TELL ME THAT'S A BINDING AWARD, I NEED IT TO BE ENFORCEABLE. THE WAY TO ENFORCE A BINDING AWARD ON A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION IS TO GO TO A CALIFORNIA COURT AND ENFORCE IT. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT. NOW, I THINK THE CHANCES OF THIS ARE 00.00001%. BUT IT'S AN ENFORCEMENT. IT'S NECESSARY. WE NEED TO HAVE IT BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY HAVE ALREADY SAID WE NEED ENFORCEABILITY. SO THE ENFORCEABILITY IS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 15, APPROACH A. THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO REACH ENFORCEABILITY. THE COMMUNITY IS DISCUSSING A MODEL CALLED "THE DESIGNATOR" WHICH IS A MODEL TO ENFORCE, TO GO TO COURT AND SAY I'M A DESIGNATOR AND I WANT TO ENFORCE A BINDING AWARD. THAT'S POSSIBLE. THAT'S ONE WAY TO DO IT. THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DO IT. I'LL GIVE YOU A WAY THAT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN DISCUSSED IN MY PAPER. WE COULD IN OUR BYLAWS SAY THAT OUR OMBUDSMAN IS AN ENFORCER. AND OUR OMBUDSMAN BECOMES THE SINGLE DESIGNATOR THAT COULD SHOW UP AND ENFORCE ANY DECISION. WE CAN DO THAT TOO. THERE ARE MANY POSSIBILITIES. IT IS NOT FOR ME TO DECIDE WHAT RIGHT WAY TO GO. I THINK WE NEED TO RELY ON THE CCWG AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING HARD TO FIND A GOOD WAY TO ENFORCE. THE LAST THING I WANT TO BRING UP TO YOUR ATTENTION IS BOARD REMOVAL. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO UNDERSTAND THE CORPORATE WORLD, WHICH I COME FROM, IN THE CORPORATE WORLD, WHEN THE SHAREHOLDERS OF A CORPORATION ARE UPSET WITH THE ACTIONS OF A BOARD, WHAT DO THEY DO? THEY REMOVE THE BOARD. SHE HAVE A SHAREHOLDERS MEETING AND REMOVE THE BOARD OR REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS. SO, IF YOU LOOK AT MY SECTION 4, THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS. LET'S AGREE ON A PRINCIPLE. IS IT IMPORTANT THAT THE COMMUNITY BE ABLE TO REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS? DO WE BELIEVE THAT? I'LL SPEAK FOR MYSELF. I THINK YES. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITY TO BE ABLE TO REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS. THE QUESTION IS: HOW AND WHAT ARE THE RULES AROUND THAT? SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF I'M SITTING AT AN ICANN BOARD MEETING AND I'M ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS NOW, I JUST HAPPEN TO HAVE THE EASY SEAT. I'M JUST THE CEO SO I GET A BOARD SEAT. EVERYBODY ELSE HALLS TO GO THROUGH MANY, MANY COMMUNITY PROCESSS TO GET THERE. BUT MY FELLOW 15 BOARD MEMBERS, THEY SIT AT THE BOARD MEETING. WHAT IS OUR ULTIMATE ROLE? OUR ULTIMATE ROLE IS TO ACT AS THE PROTECTOR OF THE MISSION AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ICANN. THAT IS OUR ULTIMATE ROLE. IN FACT, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ICANN IS THE ONLY PLACE ULTIMATELY WHERE AFTER THINGS GO THROUGH YOU -- AND CLEARLY, GOVERNMENTS HAVE A BIG ROLE IN ENSURING THE PUBLIC PERFECT. BUT ONCE IT GETS TO A DECISION POINT, THE BOARD, WHICH INCLUDES PEOPLE FROM THE BUSINESS AND FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF ICANN, MUST UPHOLD THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IF THEY DON'T, WE LOST THAT OPPORTUNITY. NOW, IF I'M SITTING AT THE BOARD SEAT AND I KNOW THAT IF I DON'T DO WHAT MY COMMUNITY TELLS ME, MY NECK WILL BE CUT TOMORROW MORNING, HOW WILL I REALLY PAY ATTENTION TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST? THEREFORE, IF WE WANT TO REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS, WE SHOULD REMOVE THEM BECAUSE THEY DID NOT ADHERE TO THE BYLAWS, THE MISSION OF ICANN. AN SO OR AC CAN REMOVE THEIR BOARD MEMBER BUT THERE HAS TO BE A PROCESS. IT CANNOT BE THAT WE JUST REMOVE THEM BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T VOTE OUR WAY. THEN SUDDENLY, WE HAVE A BEHOLDEN, CAPTIVE BOARD. THAT'S NOT HOW WE WILL PRESERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ICANN. SO YES, LET'S HAVE BOARD REMOVAL. HERE WE PROPOSED SEVERAL IDEAS. EVERY BOARD MEMBER COULD SIGN A CONTRACT BEFORE THEY BECOME A BOARD MEMBER. AND THE CONTRACT INCLUDES CONDITIONS THAT THE COMMUNITY COULD SET. FOR EXAMPLE, REMEMBER THE BINDING ARBITRATION I JUST DISCUSSED? IF A BINDING ARBITRATION AWARD SAYS ICANN SHOULD DO X AND THE BOARD MEMBER VOTES AGAINST IT, YOU COULD PUT IN THEIR CONTRACT THAT IF THEY DO THAT, THEY MUST RESIGN. INSTANTLY. THEY'RE OFF THE BOARD. SO WE COULD PUT CONDITIONS TO HOLD BOARD MEMBERS TO THE THINGS WE CARE ABOUT. WE COULD ALSO MAKE SURE THAT THE BINDING ARBITRATION CAN REMOVE A BOARD MEMBER. WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THAT BINDING ARBITRATION, AS I JUST DESCRIBED BEFORE, OF COURSE, IS ENFORCEABLE. SO THEN YOU GIVE THE ULTIMATE CONTROL OF THAT BOARD MEMBER. I THINK THE CCWG IS MOVING RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OF BRINGING OUR COMMUNITY TOGETHER AROUND COMMON SOLUTIONS. I AM CONFIDENT THAT WITHIN A FEW DAYS WE WILL ALL BE CLEAR ON WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS. I THINK WE ARE IN SYNC. IN CLOSING, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SAY THIS: AS I LEAVE ICANN AND PREPARE TO GO, WHAT AM I MOST WORRIED ABOUT IN THIS PROCESS? WHAT IS THE THING THAT KEEPS ME UP AT NIGHT? WHEN I MEET MANY OF YOUR GOVERNMENTS AND I WAS JUST AT THE ITU MEETING IN BUDAPEST AND MET MANY, MANY MINISTERS AND GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS, WHAT THEY ASKED ME, WHAT ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT NOW THAT YOU'RE LEAVING? WHAT IS TOP OF YOUR MIND? I'LL BE CANDID WITH YOU. I AM VERY WORRIED THAT WE, AT THE END OF THIS ACCOUNTABILITY REFORM, END UP DAMAGING THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL. IF WE DAMAGE THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL, WHICH HAD STOOD -- HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME, AND CREATE ANY STRUCTURES THAT ACTUALLY MAKE US CAPTURABLE -- AND BY THE WAY, WE ALL THINK OF CAPTURE WRONGLY AS SOMETHING GOVERNMENTS COULD DO. FRANKLY, GOVERNMENTS AT ICANN HAVE BEEN PROBABLY THE MOST COOPERATIVE TO MAKE THIS PROCESS CONCLUDE PROPERLY. I AM MOST WORRIED ALSO OF SHIFTING CAPTURE TO SPECIAL INTERESTS. WE MUST MAKE SURE -- AND YOU GOVERNMENTS, MUST HELP US MAKE SURE THAT ICANN'S STRENGTH IS ITS INDEPENDENCE. ITS INDEPENDENCE. IF WE LOSE THAT INDEPENDENCE, WE LOSE THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL, WE LOSE EVERYTHING WE HAVE. WE MUST REMAIN INDEPENDENT. INDEPENDENT OF CAPTURE, INDEPENDENT OF SPECIAL INTERESTS, AND INSTEAD SERVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THAT IS MY BIGGEST WORRY. AND MY CHANCE, AND YOUR CHANCE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS WEEK, IS TO HELP US MAKE SURE WE STICK TO THESE PRINCIPLES AND WE KEEP ICANN DIVERSE, INCLUSIVE, OPEN, AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER. THANK YOU.
CHAIR SCHNEIDER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, FADI. I NOTE THAT KAVOUSS, OUR COLLEAGUE FROM IRAN HAD TO LEAVE THE MEETING BUT WILL COME BACK. SO HE ANNOUNCED THAT HE WILL WANT TO TAKE THE FLOOR. SO IN CASE I FORGET IT, PLEASE REMIND ME. AND I NOTE ALSO THAT MATHIEU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING AND THEN I GIVE THE FLOOR TO ALL OF YOU, THANK YOU.
MATTHIEU WEILL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIR. NO, I'LL SPEAK IN ENGLISH FOR THIS ONE. AS YOU WILL HAVE ALL NOTED, THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF DUPLICATION BETWEEN FADI'S SPEECH AND THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO CORRECT A FEW POINTS ABOUT THE WAY FADI HAS CHARACTERIZED THE WORK OF OUR GROUP WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT FOR THIS ROOM TO BE AWARE OF. PLAINTIFF NUMBER ONE, THE SLIDE DECK THAT FADI HAS INTRODUCED, GIVEN THAT WE'VE HAD MORE THAN 14 HOURS OF MEETING ALREADY IS OUTDATED. I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THAT YOU REFER TO OLGA'S PRESENTATION AS WELL AS THE ONE WE'VE JUST PROVIDED. BECAUSE YES, THINGS ARE MOVING FAST. SO FOCUSING ON THE MOST RECENT MATERIAL CAN BE VERY IMPORTANT TO ENSURE YOU HAVE EFFICIENT DEBATES AND DISCUSSIONS. SECONDLY, FADI REFERRED TO OUR GROUP AS INVESTIGATING A DESIGNATOR MODEL. THAT IS NOT ADEQUATELY CAPTURING WHERE WE ARE NOW. WHERE WE ARE NOW IS THAT OUR SECOND REPORT IS FOCUSED ON A SOLE MEMBERSHIP MODEL AND THERE HAS BEEN WORK. AND THE WAY TO INVESTIGATE HOW A SOLE DESIGNATOR MODEL WOULD LOOK LIKE BUT IN NO WAY IS OUR GROUP AT A POINT WHERE IT HAS BEEN SHIFTING ITS FOCUS ON SOMETHING ELSE. THERE IS -- IT'S ALSO USEFUL TO REPORT THAT THE ARBITRATION MODEL THAT HAS BEEN PART OF THE BOARD COMMENT IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT HAS BEEN ASSESSED. THERE IS -- THERE HAS BEEN LEGAL REVIEWS WORK IN THE WORK PARTIES ON THIS. AND I THINK A SUMMARY COULD BE THERE ARE SERIOUS LEGAL UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT ITS EFFICIENCY. THERE'S EVEN DEBATE AMONG LAWYERS. THAT'S WHY I'M MENTIONING UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT LEGAL EFFICIENCY. AND FINALLY, I THINK THE DISCUSSION ON THE BOARD MEMBER REMOVAL WAS INTERESTING AND WE GOT FADI'S PERSONAL VIEW ON THIS. BUT IT'S WORTH NOTEING THAT THIS VERY MOFEN WE'VE MADE TREMENDOUS PROGRESS WITH A LOT OF BOARD MEMBERS BEING PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN EXPRESSING THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE WAY FORWARD THAT WE HAVE FOUND, SO I THINK THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE PROGRESS WE'RE MAKING. SO I WILL JOIN FADI IN SAYING THAT WE HAVE LITTLE TIME. THIS IS REALLY THE MOMENT TO ENGAGE, DISCUSS, AND DISCUSS ON THE BASIS OF FACTS THAT ARE ACCURATE AND AVOID SPREADING ANY UNCERTAINTIES THAT MIGHT MAKE THE DECISION HARDER TO MAKE. AND THIS IS OUR COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl Date: Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 4:52 PM Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fadi on our work
FADI CHEHADE: THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME AND ALL OF US TO COME AND TAKE SOME TIME WITH YOU. I WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH THREE SUBSTANTIVE POINTS.
THE FIRST ONE, WHATEVER WE DO, MAKE YOUR KEY PRINCIPLE THE AVOIDANCE OF CAPTURE. IT IS CRITICAL. IT IS HOW WE HOLD TO THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL. IF WE ARE CAPTURED OR IF WE CREATE A MODEL THAT ALLOWS FOR CAPTURE BY SPECIAL INTERESTS OR SPECIAL AGENDAS, IN MY OPINION, THE ICANN WE WERE ALL HANDED WOULD HAVE BEEN RUINED.
This principle is what made ICANN of what it's today, so advocating for it is actually advocating for the continuation of its current form, if that's what the community wants.
Although the current model was successful in avoiding capture from the different parts of the community, it hasn't prevented the capture from the corporation itself and from the corporation becoming more interested in its own survival than on serving its mission. But besides this particular special interest, which is neutral in nature, I agree that it prevented capture from the stakeholder sectors, which is indeed remarkable.
TWO, WATCH CAREFULLY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES THAT REFOCUS AND ANCHOR ICANN IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS AS OPPOSED TO CONTINUING THE PROJECT OF GLOBALIZATION WE ALL STARTED. WATCH FOR THAT. IF ALL ROADS END THERE, THAT'S ONE THING. BUT IF ALL ROADS START AT THE COURTS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. SO THIS IS THE DISTINCTION.
Agree with this precaution, but it's curious that the board proposal actually increases that dependency.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Steve, besides the enormous amount of logorrhea spouting out of the Chehadé-Waffler, what on earth has a private individual to appear in front of the GAC? Nothing. So he's doing this in his capacity as the CEO. And he is at best misleading the GAC, if not outright lying. That is reckless behavior of a CEO, which in some countries would be a criminal offense, in some others it would warrant lifting the corporate veil if it came to harm/loss of third parties. And if you read the contributions of the Board Members interacting with the CCWG they usually profess their interventions are in their personal capacity, which pattern of behavior indicates a concerted effort to. I wonder which Stress Test would apply to this Board tactic. greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 17 Oct 2015, at 17:27, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
Here were Fadi’s remarks to GAC:
FADI CHEHADE: THANK YOU, THOMAS, AND THANK YOU TO THE GAC CHAIRS AND VICE CHAIRS HERE WHO INVITED ME TO -- WHO ACCEPTED MY OFFER TO COME AND SPEAK.
I THINK MANY OF YOU MUST BE, BY NOW, TIRED BY THE NUMBER OF WORDS THAT WE ALL NEED TO SIFT THROUGH TO FIGURE OUT A WAY FORWARD. I AM, TOO. IT'S A LOT OF WORK FOR MANY OF US TO CATCH UP WITH EVERYTHING. AND I DO REALIZE THAT, UNLIKE ME, MOST OF YOU HAVE OTHER JOBS TO DO ALSO, AND A BIG PORTFOLIO OF ACTIVITIES TO DO, AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO KEEP UP WITH EVERYTHING HERE.
I MUST SAY THAT MOST OF YOU KNOW THAT I WILL BE LEAVING ICANN IN A FEW MONTHS, AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, I'M -- I HAVE, FRANKLY, NO STAKE HERE OTHER THAN TO CONTINUE STICKING TO THE PRINCIPLES THAT I SHARED WITH YOU FROM MY VERY FIRST MEETING IN PRAGUE, THE PRINCIPLES OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER COMMUNITY, PRINCIPLES OF WORKING PARTY TOGETHER WITH RESPECT, TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT THE WORLD NEEDS: A PLACE WHERE ALL STAKEHOLDERS COME TOGETHER AND ACTUALLY PRODUCE REAL SOLUTIONS. I THINK THE WORLD RIGHT NOW IS VERY, VERY DISAPPOINTED WITH ITS INSTITUTIONS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE EDELMAN TRUST INDEX WHICH HAS BEEN COMING OUT EVERY YEAR, EVERY SINGLE TYPE OF INSTITUTION ON THE PLANET IS LOSING TRUST FROM ITS PEOPLE. GOVERNMENTS, BUSINESSES, EVEN ACADEMIA IS STARTING TO DROP. NGOs, WAY DOWN. THIS IS THE REALITY OF THE WORLD WE ARE LIVING IN NOW. PEOPLE ARE EMPOWERED. THE INTERNET INFORMS, AND TRUST IS WANING. IT'S A DIFFICULT PLACE TO BE.
AND IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS ENVIRONMENT, ICANN OPENED UP ITS ENTIRE CONCEPT AS A MULTISTAKEHOLDER GOVERNANCE PLACE AND SAID LET'S MAKE IT BETTER. AND IN THE PROCESS, WE HAVE SEEN ENORMOUS WORK DONE BY HOUR COMMUNITY, LED BY THE THREE CHAIRS SITTING TO MY RIGHT WHOM YOU MET, THAT HAVE DONE, IN MY OPINION, A REMARKABLE JOB, BECAUSE THIS IS A DIFFICULT TASK. IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT TASK. I WAS THREE WEEKS AGO HAVING LUNCH WITH ALL THE PROFESSORS OF THE KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT AT HARVARD. THEY WERE ASKING ME HOW WAS IT GOING. HOW WAS ICANN'S ACCOUNTABILITY DISCUSSIONS GOING. AND THEY WERE SHOCKED BY HOW FAR WE'VE GOTTEN AND WHAT WE'RE DOING BECAUSE THE EXPERIMENT YOU'RE INVOLVED IN IS GROUND BREAKING. THERE IS NOTHING LIKE IT. AND THEY ADMITTED THAT NEITHER GOVERNMENTS NOR THEM AS ACADEMIC PROFESSORS OF GOVERNANCE HAVE EVER FACED SOMETHING LIKE THIS WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE A MODEL TO SHARE POWER BETWEEN VERY DIVERSE, VERY BROAD INTERESTS IN ONE PLACE WITHOUT THE POWER OF A FLAG AND WITHOUT THE POWER OF A LEGAL ENVIRONMENT. WE ARE DOING IT AS A COMMUNITY. THIS IS DIFFICULT STUFF.
SO AS WE FACE THIS DIFFICULTY, WE NEED TO STAY CALM AND WE NEED TO STAY COMPOSED, AND WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT ALL OF US ARE NOW EXPOSED TO THE SAUSAGE FACTORY. WE'RE WATCHING HOW DECISIONS ARE GETTING MADE AND FRAMEWORKS ARE BEING BUILT. AND THAT'S NOT EASY.
SOME OF US ARE SAYING THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL IS FALLING APART. IF WE SAY THAT, THEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL IS. THIS IS THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL. THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. WHAT THESE THREE HAVE BEEN PRESIDING OVER IS PRECISELY WHAT THEY SHOULD BE PRESIDING OVER: DIALOGUE, DISCUSSION, VIGOROUS, PASSIONATE POSITIONS. THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. YOU ALL KNOW THAT. YOU'VE SEEN IT IN OTHER PLACES, AND IT'S HAPPENING HERE. THAT'S NO DIFFERENT.
SO I WANT US TO START BY BEING VERY CONFIDENT THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT PROCESS THAT WE STARTED TOGETHER. THIS IS EXACTLY HOW OUTCOMES HAPPEN IN A MULTISTAKEHOLDER ENVIRONMENT. AND NOW GOVERNMENTS, LIKE YOU, WATCH THIS AND SAY, "THIS IS NOT HOW WE NORMALLY WORK. THIS IS NOT HOW WE EXPECT THINGS TO WORK." BUT THIS IS OKAY. THIS IS AN INVITATION AS MANY OF YOU, LIKE KAVOUSS AND OTHERS HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROCESS, ARE WATCHING AND BUILDING WITHIN THAT PROCESS. I AM VERY CERTAIN THAT BY THE END OF DUBLIN, WE WILL BE IN A BETTER PLACE IN TERMS OF CLARITY AS TO HOW THIS PROCESS WILL MOVE FORWARD. AND WE HAVE TO. WE HAVE TO. IF WE DON'T, THEN I THINK THE TIMELINE THAT THE COMMUNITY SET FOR THE TRANSITION, WHICH IS FOR THE CONTRACT WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO END ON SEPTEMBER 30th, 2016, THAT TIMELINE WHICH THE COMMUNITY SET WILL NO LONGER BE POSSIBLE. SO THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU -- FOR US TO NOTE. THE COMMUNITY SET A TIMELINE. THE CONTRACT WAS EXTENDED FOR ONE YEAR ACCORDING TO THAT TIMELINE, IF WE DO NOT GET A PROPOSAL IN THE HANDS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, THAT TIMELINE IS IN GREAT JEOPARDY. IT DOESN'T MEAN BE WE CAN'T MAKE THE TRANSITION IN 2017, '18 OR '19. THERE'S NO DEADLINE. BUT THE TIMELINE WE SET WILL BE IN JEOPARDY. NOW, HOW DO WE GET TO A PROPOSAL AT THE END OF 2016? WELL, LET'S BACK OFF THE STEPS. THE BOARD IS TO HAND THE GOVERNMENT THE PROPOSAL. TO DO THAT, THE BOARD NEEDS TO RECEIVE THE PROPOSAL. WHO DOES THE BOARD RECEIVE THE PROPOSAL FROM? NOT THEM. NOT THE ICG; RIGHT? THE PROPOSAL HAS TO BE FIRST GONE THROUGH THE CHARTERING ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING YOU, AND RECEIVE APPROVAL. ONCE YOU APPROVE IT, WE WILL THEN TAKE IT AND GIVE IT TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. NOW, YOU NEED TIME TO REVIEW IT AND APPROVE IT. LET'S ASSUME THAT WILL TAKE YOU A MONTH. IS THAT -- PROBABLY IN GOVERNMENT TERMS, THAT'S TIME TO MAKE A QUICK READ, BUT WE WILL NOT HAVE MORE THAN A MONTH TO DO THAT. I'M BEING CANDID WITH YOU. SO IF YOU GET THIS BY END OF NOVEMBER, THEN YOU HAVE A MONTH TO LOOK AT IT, AND THAT'S THE ONLY MONTH WE HAVE THEN TO TAKE IT AND PASS IT ON TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. NOW, FOR THEM TO FINISH BY END OF NOVEMBER, WE NEED TWO PARTS. WE NEED THE ICG PROPOSAL, AND WE KNEELED THE CCWG PROPOSAL. THE ICG PROPOSAL IS ALL BUT DONE. SO WE HAVE NO DANGER OF TIMELINE THERE. THE CCWG PROPOSAL IS NOT DONE. THEREFORE, THE FOCUS RIGHT NOW IS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THAT DONE BY THE END OF NOVEMBER SO IT CAN COME TO YOU AND HOPEFULLY, WITH YOUR HELP, NOT YOU, JUST THE GAC, ALL THE CHARTERING ORGANIZATIONS, WE CAN REVIEW IT, SUPPORT IT AND THEN HAND IT TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BY THE END OF THIS YEAR. THIS GIVES THE NTIA THE TIME IT NEEDS TO REVIEW IT, TO HOPEFULLY GIVE US THE GO AHEAD, AND THEN ALLOW MY TEAM TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSAL. AND PEOPLE TELL US, "WHY AREN'T YOU START STARTING TO IMPLEMENT TODAY?" WELL, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A PROPOSAL. WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO IMPLEMENT? WELL, THERE ARE SOME PARTS OF THE PROPOSAL YOU CAN START TO IMPLEMENT. FINE. AND AND WE HAVE. AND THIS AFTERNOON AKRAM WILL DESCRIBE SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES WE HAVE STARTED TO IMPLEMENT. SO I'M JUST GIVING YOU THIS PICTURE SO YOU CAN APPRECIATE HOW THESE DOMINOES WILL FIT SO THE GOVERNMENT HAS ITS TIME IN JANUARY, FEBRUARY TO REVIEW THE PROPOSAL. REMEMBER, THERE IS A BILL IN CONGRESS CALLED THE DOTCOM ACT THAT HAS PASSED THE HOUSE BUT HAS NOT PASSED THE SENATE. IF IT PASSES THE SENATE OR IF IT'S INCLUDED IN SOME KIND OF PACKAGE AT THE END OF THIS YEAR IN THE GOVERNMENT OMNIBUS PROPOSAL, THEN IT WILL BECOME LAW. AND IF IT BECOMES LAW, THEN THAT BILL ALONE WILL PAD MORE MONTHS ON LARRY'S WORK, BECAUSE THAT BILL SAYS THAT LARRY WILL NEED TO CERTIFY THAT OUR PROPOSAL MEETS THE U.S. NTIA REQUIREMENTS. AND ONCE HE CERTIFIES, HE STARTS A CLOCK OF A COUPLE OF MONTHS OR SO FOR CONGRESS TO ENTER INTO DIALOGUE WITH HIM. SO THESE ARE THE FACTS THAT WE ALL NEED TO APPRECIATE, ALL OF WHICH POINT TO THE WORK UPON US RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS HOW DO WE GET THROUGH THIS VERY IMPORTANT PHASE OF GETTING THE WORK OF THE CCWG COMPLETED BY END OF NOVEMBER. HOW FAR IS END OF NOVEMBER, LEON? THAT'S LIKE FIVE WEEKS? SIX WEEKS?
LEON SANCHEZ: NOT ENOUGH. FADI CHEHADE: NOT ENOUGH. SO WE'RE FIVE, SIX WEEKS AWAY FROM THOSE FOLKS WHO HAVE DEDICATED INCREDIBLE, INCREDIBLE HOURS OF THEIR TIME. THEY ALL HAVE DAY JOBS, BY THE WAY, IN CASE YOU DIDN'T KNOW. MATHIEU RUNS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE LARGEST ccTLDs IN THE WORLD IN FRANCE. THOMAS HAS A FAMILY AND A BUSINESS TO SUPPORT, BECAUSE THIS DOESN'T PAY THE BILLS, BUT HE HAS GIVEN A LOT OF HIS TIME. AND LEON ALSO THE SAME, AS AN ATTORNEY IN MEXICO CITY. BUT THEY ARE LEADING A MASSIVE EFFORT WITH THE RAPPORTEURS, AND WE THANK THEM AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN FOR WHAT THEY DO. HOWEVER, TO R ALL OF US, FOR THEIR SAKE AND OUR SAKE, WE NED TO GET THIS TO A CLOSURE. WHY DUBLIN THEN BECOMES IMPORTANT. DUBLIN BECOMES THE MOMENT WHEN WE CAN HAVE A THOUGHTFUL ASSESSMENT OF WHAT'S LEFT ON THE TABLE, WHAT NEEDS TO BE DECIDED, AND TO HOPEFULLY COME TO A COLLECTIVE, I WOULD SAY, BROAD AGREEMENT ON WHAT IN BUSINESS WE WOULD CALL THE TERM SHEET OR THE FRAMEWORK OF AN AGREEMENT. WE WON'T BE ABLE TO WRITE DOWN EVERY FINAL WORD ON THIS, BUT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO AGREE ON THE BROAD FRAMEWORK ON ACCOUNTABILITY. AND IF WE CAN DO THAT BY END OF DUBLIN AND WE'RE ALL HERE BY THE THOUSANDS TO DO THAT, THEN I THINK WE HAVE, BETWEEN END OF DUBLIN AND END OF NOVEMBER IN GOOD FAITH TO WORK TOGETHER TO WRAP THIS UP.
THAT'S THE PLAN. THAT'S THE BEST CASE PLAN. AND I HOPE IT IS THE PLAN BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER PLANS RIGHT NOW. WE DON'T HAVE ANY ROOM FOR ANY OTHER PLANS. SO THAT BRINGS ME TO WHAT IS LEFT TO BE DECIDED. WHAT IS THERE. IN MY PERSONAL CAPACITY AS SOMEONE WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL VERY INVOLVED AND ENGAGED IN THIS PROCESS BUT ALSO RECOGNIZING THE FACT THAT I AM LEAVING, AND, THEREFORE, I HAVE NO PARTICULAR POWER POINT HERE. I AM HERE SIMPLY TO SHARE MY UNDERSTANDING AND MY KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT I'M WATCHING AND TO HELP US ALL CONTINUE WITH OUR COMMON PRINCIPLES TO SOLVE THIS ISSUE. SO I BUILT THIS DECK. IT TOOK ME ABOUT 52 PERSONAL HOURS, WHICH I DON'T TYPICALLY HAVE SO THIS WAS MY EVENINGS AND MICROPROCESSOR NIGHTS TO BUILD THIS DECK IN ORDER TO HELP US JUST UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE. THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A VIEWPOINT. THIS IS A DECK. AND WHERE I FELT THERE ARE DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS, I PUT MULTIPLE APPROACHES. BUT I URGE YOU TO READ IT AND UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE IT MIGHT GIVE US A WAY OUT THIS WEEK TO FINISH OUR WORK. THE ONLY THING I'D LIKE TO SAY IS TO EMPHASIZE THE KEY POINTS THAT ARE LEFT FOR DECISION-MAKING. THE FIRST POINT IS HOW DO WE REACH -- HOW DO WE CREATE AT ICANN A BELIEVABLE, TRUSTED APPEAL MECHANISM FOR THE COMMUNITY? HOW DO WE DO THAT? SO WHEN THE COMMUNITY IS IN DISAGREEMENT WITH A BOARD DECISION, HOW DOES THE COMMUNITY EFFECTIVELY APPEAL THAT DECISION? OKAY? THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. TODAY THE COMMUNITY HAS NO BINDING MECHANISM OVER THE BOARD. AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT MY DECK IN SECTION 9, SECTION 9 CLEARLY SHOWS, WHOEVER MANAGING THE SLIDES, IF YOU COULD GO TO SECTION 9. SECTION 9, AND I THINK IT'S EASIER TO READ THE OTHER WAY IF YOU CAN, BUT IN SECTION 9, THERE IS A DESCRIPTION OF A BINDING ARBITRATION MECHANISM THAT IS ESSENTIALLY TAKEN FROM THE CCWG ACCOUNTABILITY PROPOSAL SECTION 5.1, WHICH IS MAKE AN IRP FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT IS BINDING. MAKE SURE ICANN PAYS FOR THE PARTY BRINGING THE IRP IN THE COMMUNITY, SO THERE'S NO QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. MAKE SURE THAT THIS IRP HAS A STANDING PANEL OF JUDGES THAT IS EXPERT AND AVAILABLE SO WE DON'T SPEND SIX MONTHS LOOKING FOR THEM EVERY TIME. MAKE SURE THAT THIS IRP IS EFFICIENT. WE DON'T WANT TO WAIT SIX YEARS FOR A DECISION. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THIS DECISION QUICKLY SO THIS IS WHAT THIS DECISION PROPOSES. I THINK THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ICANN -- AND I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR THEM HERE. I'M SPEAKING IN MY PERSONAL CAPACITY -- HAS ACCEPTED THIS MODEL. AND THAT'S A GOOD THING. AND I'LL BE CANDID WITH YOU. UNTIL NOW -- AND IF IT WASN'T THANKS TO THE EFFORT OF THE PEOPLE HERE TO MY RIGHT AND THEIR -- NOT JUST THEM, BUT OF COURSE THE CCWG WITH THEIR LEADERSHIP, THE BOARD OF ICANN HAD NOT EVER ACCEPTED A BINDING ARBITRATION. LET'S BE SUPER CLEAR ON THAT. THIS IS ING ARBITRATION MECHANISM. AND ITS DETAILS COME FROM THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMUNITY. NOT FROM THE BOARD. THIS IS A VERY POWERFUL NEW PROGRESS. AND THAT MEANS IF THE COMMUNITY IS IN DISAGREEMENT TO THE BOARD, IT HAS A RELIABLE MECHANISM TO GO TO A ARBITRATION COURT -- EXCUSE ME TO GO TO A PANEL WHICH IS STANDING AND GET A JUDGMENT, AN AWARD, JUDGMENT AGAINST A BOARD DECISION. NOW, THE CORE, THE COMMUNITY IS WORRIED WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE GET THIS? WHAT IF THE ICANN BOARD FLAUNTS IT? OR WHAT IF THE ICANN BOARD DOESN'T SHOW UP TO THE BINDING ARBITRATION? WELL, FIRST THEY SAY HERE VERY CLEARLY, IF ICANN CHOOSES NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COMMUNITY IRP DECISIONS, THE DECISION IS STILL BINDING. AND WE WILL PUT THAT IN THE BYLAWS. WE WILL MAKE SURE IT IS ENFORCED SO THAT THE COMMUNITY ALWAYS GETS A BINDING JUDGMENT THERE. THEN. NEXT THING BECOMES WELL, WHAT IF WE HAVE THE BINDING JUDGMENT AND ICANN DOES NOT ABIDE BY IT? WHICH COULD HAPPEN. I THINK IT'S REMOTE. IT'S NEVER HAPPENED. WE'VE NEVER HAD A JUDGMENT AGAINST ICANN THAT WAS NOT ABIDED BY. BUT IT COULD HAPPEN. AND IF I WERE IN YOUR SEATS OR IN THE COMMUNITY SEATS, I'D SAY LOOK, I WANT BELTS AND SUSPENDERS. IF YOU TELL ME THAT'S A BINDING AWARD, I NEED IT TO BE ENFORCEABLE. THE WAY TO ENFORCE A BINDING AWARD ON A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION IS TO GO TO A CALIFORNIA COURT AND ENFORCE IT. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT. NOW, I THINK THE CHANCES OF THIS ARE 00.00001%. BUT IT'S AN ENFORCEMENT. IT'S NECESSARY. WE NEED TO HAVE IT BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY HAVE ALREADY SAID WE NEED ENFORCEABILITY. SO THE ENFORCEABILITY IS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 15, APPROACH A. THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO REACH ENFORCEABILITY. THE COMMUNITY IS DISCUSSING A MODEL CALLED "THE DESIGNATOR" WHICH IS A MODEL TO ENFORCE, TO GO TO COURT AND SAY I'M A DESIGNATOR AND I WANT TO ENFORCE A BINDING AWARD. THAT'S POSSIBLE. THAT'S ONE WAY TO DO IT. THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DO IT. I'LL GIVE YOU A WAY THAT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN DISCUSSED IN MY PAPER. WE COULD IN OUR BYLAWS SAY THAT OUR OMBUDSMAN IS AN ENFORCER. AND OUR OMBUDSMAN BECOMES THE SINGLE DESIGNATOR THAT COULD SHOW UP AND ENFORCE ANY DECISION. WE CAN DO THAT TOO. THERE ARE MANY POSSIBILITIES. IT IS NOT FOR ME TO DECIDE WHAT RIGHT WAY TO GO. I THINK WE NEED TO RELY ON THE CCWG AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING HARD TO FIND A GOOD WAY TO ENFORCE. THE LAST THING I WANT TO BRING UP TO YOUR ATTENTION IS BOARD REMOVAL. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO UNDERSTAND THE CORPORATE WORLD, WHICH I COME FROM, IN THE CORPORATE WORLD, WHEN THE SHAREHOLDERS OF A CORPORATION ARE UPSET WITH THE ACTIONS OF A BOARD, WHAT DO THEY DO? THEY REMOVE THE BOARD. SHE HAVE A SHAREHOLDERS MEETING AND REMOVE THE BOARD OR REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS. SO, IF YOU LOOK AT MY SECTION 4, THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS. LET'S AGREE ON A PRINCIPLE. IS IT IMPORTANT THAT THE COMMUNITY BE ABLE TO REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS? DO WE BELIEVE THAT? I'LL SPEAK FOR MYSELF. I THINK YES. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITY TO BE ABLE TO REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS. THE QUESTION IS: HOW AND WHAT ARE THE RULES AROUND THAT? SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF I'M SITTING AT AN ICANN BOARD MEETING AND I'M ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS NOW, I JUST HAPPEN TO HAVE THE EASY SEAT. I'M JUST THE CEO SO I GET A BOARD SEAT. EVERYBODY ELSE HALLS TO GO THROUGH MANY, MANY COMMUNITY PROCESSS TO GET THERE. BUT MY FELLOW 15 BOARD MEMBERS, THEY SIT AT THE BOARD MEETING. WHAT IS OUR ULTIMATE ROLE? OUR ULTIMATE ROLE IS TO ACT AS THE PROTECTOR OF THE MISSION AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ICANN. THAT IS OUR ULTIMATE ROLE. IN FACT, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ICANN IS THE ONLY PLACE ULTIMATELY WHERE AFTER THINGS GO THROUGH YOU -- AND CLEARLY, GOVERNMENTS HAVE A BIG ROLE IN ENSURING THE PUBLIC PERFECT. BUT ONCE IT GETS TO A DECISION POINT, THE BOARD, WHICH INCLUDES PEOPLE FROM THE BUSINESS AND FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF ICANN, MUST UPHOLD THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IF THEY DON'T, WE LOST THAT OPPORTUNITY. NOW, IF I'M SITTING AT THE BOARD SEAT AND I KNOW THAT IF I DON'T DO WHAT MY COMMUNITY TELLS ME, MY NECK WILL BE CUT TOMORROW MORNING, HOW WILL I REALLY PAY ATTENTION TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST? THEREFORE, IF WE WANT TO REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS, WE SHOULD REMOVE THEM BECAUSE THEY DID NOT ADHERE TO THE BYLAWS, THE MISSION OF ICANN. AN SO OR AC CAN REMOVE THEIR BOARD MEMBER BUT THERE HAS TO BE A PROCESS. IT CANNOT BE THAT WE JUST REMOVE THEM BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T VOTE OUR WAY. THEN SUDDENLY, WE HAVE A BEHOLDEN, CAPTIVE BOARD. THAT'S NOT HOW WE WILL PRESERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ICANN. SO YES, LET'S HAVE BOARD REMOVAL. HERE WE PROPOSED SEVERAL IDEAS. EVERY BOARD MEMBER COULD SIGN A CONTRACT BEFORE THEY BECOME A BOARD MEMBER. AND THE CONTRACT INCLUDES CONDITIONS THAT THE COMMUNITY COULD SET. FOR EXAMPLE, REMEMBER THE BINDING ARBITRATION I JUST DISCUSSED? IF A BINDING ARBITRATION AWARD SAYS ICANN SHOULD DO X AND THE BOARD MEMBER VOTES AGAINST IT, YOU COULD PUT IN THEIR CONTRACT THAT IF THEY DO THAT, THEY MUST RESIGN. INSTANTLY. THEY'RE OFF THE BOARD. SO WE COULD PUT CONDITIONS TO HOLD BOARD MEMBERS TO THE THINGS WE CARE ABOUT. WE COULD ALSO MAKE SURE THAT THE BINDING ARBITRATION CAN REMOVE A BOARD MEMBER. WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THAT BINDING ARBITRATION, AS I JUST DESCRIBED BEFORE, OF COURSE, IS ENFORCEABLE. SO THEN YOU GIVE THE ULTIMATE CONTROL OF THAT BOARD MEMBER. I THINK THE CCWG IS MOVING RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OF BRINGING OUR COMMUNITY TOGETHER AROUND COMMON SOLUTIONS. I AM CONFIDENT THAT WITHIN A FEW DAYS WE WILL ALL BE CLEAR ON WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS. I THINK WE ARE IN SYNC. IN CLOSING, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SAY THIS: AS I LEAVE ICANN AND PREPARE TO GO, WHAT AM I MOST WORRIED ABOUT IN THIS PROCESS? WHAT IS THE THING THAT KEEPS ME UP AT NIGHT? WHEN I MEET MANY OF YOUR GOVERNMENTS AND I WAS JUST AT THE ITU MEETING IN BUDAPEST AND MET MANY, MANY MINISTERS AND GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS, WHAT THEY ASKED ME, WHAT ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT NOW THAT YOU'RE LEAVING? WHAT IS TOP OF YOUR MIND? I'LL BE CANDID WITH YOU. I AM VERY WORRIED THAT WE, AT THE END OF THIS ACCOUNTABILITY REFORM, END UP DAMAGING THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL. IF WE DAMAGE THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL, WHICH HAD STOOD -- HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME, AND CREATE ANY STRUCTURES THAT ACTUALLY MAKE US CAPTURABLE -- AND BY THE WAY, WE ALL THINK OF CAPTURE WRONGLY AS SOMETHING GOVERNMENTS COULD DO. FRANKLY, GOVERNMENTS AT ICANN HAVE BEEN PROBABLY THE MOST COOPERATIVE TO MAKE THIS PROCESS CONCLUDE PROPERLY. I AM MOST WORRIED ALSO OF SHIFTING CAPTURE TO SPECIAL INTERESTS. WE MUST MAKE SURE -- AND YOU GOVERNMENTS, MUST HELP US MAKE SURE THAT ICANN'S STRENGTH IS ITS INDEPENDENCE. ITS INDEPENDENCE. IF WE LOSE THAT INDEPENDENCE, WE LOSE THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL, WE LOSE EVERYTHING WE HAVE. WE MUST REMAIN INDEPENDENT. INDEPENDENT OF CAPTURE, INDEPENDENT OF SPECIAL INTERESTS, AND INSTEAD SERVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THAT IS MY BIGGEST WORRY. AND MY CHANCE, AND YOUR CHANCE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS WEEK, IS TO HELP US MAKE SURE WE STICK TO THESE PRINCIPLES AND WE KEEP ICANN DIVERSE, INCLUSIVE, OPEN, AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER. THANK YOU.
CHAIR SCHNEIDER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, FADI. I NOTE THAT KAVOUSS, OUR COLLEAGUE FROM IRAN HAD TO LEAVE THE MEETING BUT WILL COME BACK. SO HE ANNOUNCED THAT HE WILL WANT TO TAKE THE FLOOR. SO IN CASE I FORGET IT, PLEASE REMIND ME. AND I NOTE ALSO THAT MATHIEU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING AND THEN I GIVE THE FLOOR TO ALL OF YOU, THANK YOU.
MATTHIEU WEILL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIR. NO, I'LL SPEAK IN ENGLISH FOR THIS ONE. AS YOU WILL HAVE ALL NOTED, THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF DUPLICATION BETWEEN FADI'S SPEECH AND THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO CORRECT A FEW POINTS ABOUT THE WAY FADI HAS CHARACTERIZED THE WORK OF OUR GROUP WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT FOR THIS ROOM TO BE AWARE OF. PLAINTIFF NUMBER ONE, THE SLIDE DECK THAT FADI HAS INTRODUCED, GIVEN THAT WE'VE HAD MORE THAN 14 HOURS OF MEETING ALREADY IS OUTDATED. I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THAT YOU REFER TO OLGA'S PRESENTATION AS WELL AS THE ONE WE'VE JUST PROVIDED. BECAUSE YES, THINGS ARE MOVING FAST. SO FOCUSING ON THE MOST RECENT MATERIAL CAN BE VERY IMPORTANT TO ENSURE YOU HAVE EFFICIENT DEBATES AND DISCUSSIONS. SECONDLY, FADI REFERRED TO OUR GROUP AS INVESTIGATING A DESIGNATOR MODEL. THAT IS NOT ADEQUATELY CAPTURING WHERE WE ARE NOW. WHERE WE ARE NOW IS THAT OUR SECOND REPORT IS FOCUSED ON A SOLE MEMBERSHIP MODEL AND THERE HAS BEEN WORK. AND THE WAY TO INVESTIGATE HOW A SOLE DESIGNATOR MODEL WOULD LOOK LIKE BUT IN NO WAY IS OUR GROUP AT A POINT WHERE IT HAS BEEN SHIFTING ITS FOCUS ON SOMETHING ELSE. THERE IS -- IT'S ALSO USEFUL TO REPORT THAT THE ARBITRATION MODEL THAT HAS BEEN PART OF THE BOARD COMMENT IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT HAS BEEN ASSESSED. THERE IS -- THERE HAS BEEN LEGAL REVIEWS WORK IN THE WORK PARTIES ON THIS. AND I THINK A SUMMARY COULD BE THERE ARE SERIOUS LEGAL UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT ITS EFFICIENCY. THERE'S EVEN DEBATE AMONG LAWYERS. THAT'S WHY I'M MENTIONING UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT LEGAL EFFICIENCY. AND FINALLY, I THINK THE DISCUSSION ON THE BOARD MEMBER REMOVAL WAS INTERESTING AND WE GOT FADI'S PERSONAL VIEW ON THIS. BUT IT'S WORTH NOTEING THAT THIS VERY MOFEN WE'VE MADE TREMENDOUS PROGRESS WITH A LOT OF BOARD MEMBERS BEING PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN EXPRESSING THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE WAY FORWARD THAT WE HAVE FOUND, SO I THINK THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE PROGRESS WE'RE MAKING. SO I WILL JOIN FADI IN SAYING THAT WE HAVE LITTLE TIME. THIS IS REALLY THE MOMENT TO ENGAGE, DISCUSS, AND DISCUSS ON THE BASIS OF FACTS THAT ARE ACCURATE AND AVOID SPREADING ANY UNCERTAINTIES THAT MIGHT MAKE THE DECISION HARDER TO MAKE. AND THIS IS OUR COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl Date: Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 4:52 PM Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fadi on our work
FADI CHEHADE: THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME AND ALL OF US TO COME AND TAKE SOME TIME WITH YOU. I WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH THREE SUBSTANTIVE POINTS.
THE FIRST ONE, WHATEVER WE DO, MAKE YOUR KEY PRINCIPLE THE AVOIDANCE OF CAPTURE. IT IS CRITICAL. IT IS HOW WE HOLD TO THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL. IF WE ARE CAPTURED OR IF WE CREATE A MODEL THAT ALLOWS FOR CAPTURE BY SPECIAL INTERESTS OR SPECIAL AGENDAS, IN MY OPINION, THE ICANN WE WERE ALL HANDED WOULD HAVE BEEN RUINED.
This principle is what made ICANN of what it's today, so advocating for it is actually advocating for the continuation of its current form, if that's what the community wants.
Although the current model was successful in avoiding capture from the different parts of the community, it hasn't prevented the capture from the corporation itself and from the corporation becoming more interested in its own survival than on serving its mission. But besides this particular special interest, which is neutral in nature, I agree that it prevented capture from the stakeholder sectors, which is indeed remarkable.
TWO, WATCH CAREFULLY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES THAT REFOCUS AND ANCHOR ICANN IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS AS OPPOSED TO CONTINUING THE PROJECT OF GLOBALIZATION WE ALL STARTED. WATCH FOR THAT. IF ALL ROADS END THERE, THAT'S ONE THING. BUT IF ALL ROADS START AT THE COURTS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. SO THIS IS THE DISTINCTION.
Agree with this precaution, but it's curious that the board proposal actually increases that dependency.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thanks for sharing this Steve, it amazes me why some in the list characterise Fadi's comments in the way we did, and I hope we all take time to go through the transcript. The sides he used were prepared before Dublin and some of the views he raised have equally been raised by some community members. I am sure the challenge given by Fadi to GAC will most likely be repeated by him at all other SO/AC(just that he will be mentioning the specific SO/AC and not GAC) meeting he attends through this week. It's important to repeat the importance of the sustainability of the MS within ICANN and letting GAC know that they have a huge role to play (in a GAC meeting) is at best strategic. The response given by Thomas was indeed helpful but I am highly concerned that the current CCWG was presented as being highly focused on membership. I don't think that is accurate enough as a lot of work has occurred in looking at the designator approach in the last few days. I also find it inaccurate to say board members have agreed to the individual board member removal process (as amended) as I did not hear that in the room. Even at that, I believe some community member (including myself) raised that a board removal needs to be done by the community and not just the appointing SO/AC. That was not addressed except for the cosmetic community engagement process that was introduced, which still ultimately put decisions in the hands of appointing SO/AC. A lot has been achieved over the last few days, and I think it's important to be clear on those progresses so that SO/AC (especially GAC/ccNSO who has face 2 face requirements for decision making) would be able to have a clear understanding/direction early enough in Dublin so there can be some level of focused discussion within their community before the end of Dublin. There is no doubt that Fadi's suggestion of 5 weeks is highly ambitious and may be impractical but we all recognise that there is a time factor here and I believe the timeline earlier shared by Co-Chairs which proposes completion to be Jan can be achieved (though this assumes SO/AC can pull off approval remotely or whether another face 2 face can happen) Looking forward to engaging further here in Dublin. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 17 Oct 2015 17:28, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
Here were Fadi’s remarks to GAC:
FADI CHEHADE: THANK YOU, THOMAS, AND THANK YOU TO THE GAC CHAIRS AND VICE CHAIRS HERE WHO INVITED ME TO -- WHO ACCEPTED MY OFFER TO COME AND SPEAK.
I THINK MANY OF YOU MUST BE, BY NOW, TIRED BY THE NUMBER OF WORDS THAT WE ALL NEED TO SIFT THROUGH TO FIGURE OUT A WAY FORWARD. I AM, TOO. IT'S A LOT OF WORK FOR MANY OF US TO CATCH UP WITH EVERYTHING. AND I DO REALIZE THAT, UNLIKE ME, MOST OF YOU HAVE OTHER JOBS TO DO ALSO, AND A BIG PORTFOLIO OF ACTIVITIES TO DO, AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO KEEP UP WITH EVERYTHING HERE.
I MUST SAY THAT MOST OF YOU KNOW THAT I WILL BE LEAVING ICANN IN A FEW MONTHS, AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, I'M -- I HAVE, FRANKLY, NO STAKE HERE OTHER THAN TO CONTINUE STICKING TO THE PRINCIPLES THAT I SHARED WITH YOU FROM MY VERY FIRST MEETING IN PRAGUE, THE PRINCIPLES OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER COMMUNITY, PRINCIPLES OF WORKING PARTY TOGETHER WITH RESPECT, TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT THE WORLD NEEDS: A PLACE WHERE ALL STAKEHOLDERS COME TOGETHER AND ACTUALLY PRODUCE REAL SOLUTIONS. I THINK THE WORLD RIGHT NOW IS VERY, VERY DISAPPOINTED WITH ITS INSTITUTIONS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE EDELMAN TRUST INDEX WHICH HAS BEEN COMING OUT EVERY YEAR, EVERY SINGLE TYPE OF INSTITUTION ON THE PLANET IS LOSING TRUST FROM ITS PEOPLE. GOVERNMENTS, BUSINESSES, EVEN ACADEMIA IS STARTING TO DROP. NGOs, WAY DOWN. THIS IS THE REALITY OF THE WORLD WE ARE LIVING IN NOW. PEOPLE ARE EMPOWERED. THE INTERNET INFORMS, AND TRUST IS WANING. IT'S A DIFFICULT PLACE TO BE.
AND IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS ENVIRONMENT, ICANN OPENED UP ITS ENTIRE CONCEPT AS A MULTISTAKEHOLDER GOVERNANCE PLACE AND SAID LET'S MAKE IT BETTER. AND IN THE PROCESS, WE HAVE SEEN ENORMOUS WORK DONE BY HOUR COMMUNITY, LED BY THE THREE CHAIRS SITTING TO MY RIGHT WHOM YOU MET, THAT HAVE DONE, IN MY OPINION, A REMARKABLE JOB, BECAUSE THIS IS A DIFFICULT TASK. IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT TASK. I WAS THREE WEEKS AGO HAVING LUNCH WITH ALL THE PROFESSORS OF THE KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT AT HARVARD. THEY WERE ASKING ME HOW WAS IT GOING. HOW WAS ICANN'S ACCOUNTABILITY DISCUSSIONS GOING. AND THEY WERE SHOCKED BY HOW FAR WE'VE GOTTEN AND WHAT WE'RE DOING BECAUSE THE EXPERIMENT YOU'RE INVOLVED IN IS GROUND BREAKING. THERE IS NOTHING LIKE IT. AND THEY ADMITTED THAT NEITHER GOVERNMENTS NOR THEM AS ACADEMIC PROFESSORS OF GOVERNANCE HAVE EVER FACED SOMETHING LIKE THIS WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE A MODEL TO SHARE POWER BETWEEN VERY DIVERSE, VERY BROAD INTERESTS IN ONE PLACE WITHOUT THE POWER OF A FLAG AND WITHOUT THE POWER OF A LEGAL ENVIRONMENT. WE ARE DOING IT AS A COMMUNITY. THIS IS DIFFICULT STUFF.
SO AS WE FACE THIS DIFFICULTY, WE NEED TO STAY CALM AND WE NEED TO STAY COMPOSED, AND WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT ALL OF US ARE NOW EXPOSED TO THE SAUSAGE FACTORY. WE'RE WATCHING HOW DECISIONS ARE GETTING MADE AND FRAMEWORKS ARE BEING BUILT. AND THAT'S NOT EASY.
SOME OF US ARE SAYING THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL IS FALLING APART. IF WE SAY THAT, THEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL IS. THIS IS THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL. THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. WHAT THESE THREE HAVE BEEN PRESIDING OVER IS PRECISELY WHAT THEY SHOULD BE PRESIDING OVER: DIALOGUE, DISCUSSION, VIGOROUS, PASSIONATE POSITIONS. THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. YOU ALL KNOW THAT. YOU'VE SEEN IT IN OTHER PLACES, AND IT'S HAPPENING HERE. THAT'S NO DIFFERENT.
SO I WANT US TO START BY BEING VERY CONFIDENT THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT PROCESS THAT WE STARTED TOGETHER. THIS IS EXACTLY HOW OUTCOMES HAPPEN IN A MULTISTAKEHOLDER ENVIRONMENT. AND NOW GOVERNMENTS, LIKE YOU, WATCH THIS AND SAY, "THIS IS NOT HOW WE NORMALLY WORK. THIS IS NOT HOW WE EXPECT THINGS TO WORK." BUT THIS IS OKAY. THIS IS AN INVITATION AS MANY OF YOU, LIKE KAVOUSS AND OTHERS HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROCESS, ARE WATCHING AND BUILDING WITHIN THAT PROCESS. I AM VERY CERTAIN THAT BY THE END OF DUBLIN, WE WILL BE IN A BETTER PLACE IN TERMS OF CLARITY AS TO HOW THIS PROCESS WILL MOVE FORWARD. AND WE HAVE TO. WE HAVE TO. IF WE DON'T, THEN I THINK THE TIMELINE THAT THE COMMUNITY SET FOR THE TRANSITION, WHICH IS FOR THE CONTRACT WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO END ON SEPTEMBER 30th, 2016, THAT TIMELINE WHICH THE COMMUNITY SET WILL NO LONGER BE POSSIBLE. SO THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU -- FOR US TO NOTE. THE COMMUNITY SET A TIMELINE. THE CONTRACT WAS EXTENDED FOR ONE YEAR ACCORDING TO THAT TIMELINE, IF WE DO NOT GET A PROPOSAL IN THE HANDS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, THAT TIMELINE IS IN GREAT JEOPARDY. IT DOESN'T MEAN BE WE CAN'T MAKE THE TRANSITION IN 2017, '18 OR '19. THERE'S NO DEADLINE. BUT THE TIMELINE WE SET WILL BE IN JEOPARDY. NOW, HOW DO WE GET TO A PROPOSAL AT THE END OF 2016? WELL, LET'S BACK OFF THE STEPS. THE BOARD IS TO HAND THE GOVERNMENT THE PROPOSAL. TO DO THAT, THE BOARD NEEDS TO RECEIVE THE PROPOSAL. WHO DOES THE BOARD RECEIVE THE PROPOSAL FROM? NOT THEM. NOT THE ICG; RIGHT? THE PROPOSAL HAS TO BE FIRST GONE THROUGH THE CHARTERING ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING YOU, AND RECEIVE APPROVAL. ONCE YOU APPROVE IT, WE WILL THEN TAKE IT AND GIVE IT TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. NOW, YOU NEED TIME TO REVIEW IT AND APPROVE IT. LET'S ASSUME THAT WILL TAKE YOU A MONTH. IS THAT -- PROBABLY IN GOVERNMENT TERMS, THAT'S TIME TO MAKE A QUICK READ, BUT WE WILL NOT HAVE MORE THAN A MONTH TO DO THAT. I'M BEING CANDID WITH YOU. SO IF YOU GET THIS BY END OF NOVEMBER, THEN YOU HAVE A MONTH TO LOOK AT IT, AND THAT'S THE ONLY MONTH WE HAVE THEN TO TAKE IT AND PASS IT ON TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. NOW, FOR THEM TO FINISH BY END OF NOVEMBER, WE NEED TWO PARTS. WE NEED THE ICG PROPOSAL, AND WE KNEELED THE CCWG PROPOSAL. THE ICG PROPOSAL IS ALL BUT DONE. SO WE HAVE NO DANGER OF TIMELINE THERE. THE CCWG PROPOSAL IS NOT DONE. THEREFORE, THE FOCUS RIGHT NOW IS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THAT DONE BY THE END OF NOVEMBER SO IT CAN COME TO YOU AND HOPEFULLY, WITH YOUR HELP, NOT YOU, JUST THE GAC, ALL THE CHARTERING ORGANIZATIONS, WE CAN REVIEW IT, SUPPORT IT AND THEN HAND IT TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BY THE END OF THIS YEAR. THIS GIVES THE NTIA THE TIME IT NEEDS TO REVIEW IT, TO HOPEFULLY GIVE US THE GO AHEAD, AND THEN ALLOW MY TEAM TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSAL. AND PEOPLE TELL US, "WHY AREN'T YOU START STARTING TO IMPLEMENT TODAY?" WELL, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A PROPOSAL. WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO IMPLEMENT? WELL, THERE ARE SOME PARTS OF THE PROPOSAL YOU CAN START TO IMPLEMENT. FINE. AND AND WE HAVE. AND THIS AFTERNOON AKRAM WILL DESCRIBE SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES WE HAVE STARTED TO IMPLEMENT. SO I'M JUST GIVING YOU THIS PICTURE SO YOU CAN APPRECIATE HOW THESE DOMINOES WILL FIT SO THE GOVERNMENT HAS ITS TIME IN JANUARY, FEBRUARY TO REVIEW THE PROPOSAL. REMEMBER, THERE IS A BILL IN CONGRESS CALLED THE DOTCOM ACT THAT HAS PASSED THE HOUSE BUT HAS NOT PASSED THE SENATE. IF IT PASSES THE SENATE OR IF IT'S INCLUDED IN SOME KIND OF PACKAGE AT THE END OF THIS YEAR IN THE GOVERNMENT OMNIBUS PROPOSAL, THEN IT WILL BECOME LAW. AND IF IT BECOMES LAW, THEN THAT BILL ALONE WILL PAD MORE MONTHS ON LARRY'S WORK, BECAUSE THAT BILL SAYS THAT LARRY WILL NEED TO CERTIFY THAT OUR PROPOSAL MEETS THE U.S. NTIA REQUIREMENTS. AND ONCE HE CERTIFIES, HE STARTS A CLOCK OF A COUPLE OF MONTHS OR SO FOR CONGRESS TO ENTER INTO DIALOGUE WITH HIM. SO THESE ARE THE FACTS THAT WE ALL NEED TO APPRECIATE, ALL OF WHICH POINT TO THE WORK UPON US RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS HOW DO WE GET THROUGH THIS VERY IMPORTANT PHASE OF GETTING THE WORK OF THE CCWG COMPLETED BY END OF NOVEMBER. HOW FAR IS END OF NOVEMBER, LEON? THAT'S LIKE FIVE WEEKS? SIX WEEKS?
LEON SANCHEZ: NOT ENOUGH. FADI CHEHADE: NOT ENOUGH. SO WE'RE FIVE, SIX WEEKS AWAY FROM THOSE FOLKS WHO HAVE DEDICATED INCREDIBLE, INCREDIBLE HOURS OF THEIR TIME. THEY ALL HAVE DAY JOBS, BY THE WAY, IN CASE YOU DIDN'T KNOW. MATHIEU RUNS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE LARGEST ccTLDs IN THE WORLD IN FRANCE. THOMAS HAS A FAMILY AND A BUSINESS TO SUPPORT, BECAUSE THIS DOESN'T PAY THE BILLS, BUT HE HAS GIVEN A LOT OF HIS TIME. AND LEON ALSO THE SAME, AS AN ATTORNEY IN MEXICO CITY. BUT THEY ARE LEADING A MASSIVE EFFORT WITH THE RAPPORTEURS, AND WE THANK THEM AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN FOR WHAT THEY DO. HOWEVER, TO R ALL OF US, FOR THEIR SAKE AND OUR SAKE, WE NED TO GET THIS TO A CLOSURE. WHY DUBLIN THEN BECOMES IMPORTANT. DUBLIN BECOMES THE MOMENT WHEN WE CAN HAVE A THOUGHTFUL ASSESSMENT OF WHAT'S LEFT ON THE TABLE, WHAT NEEDS TO BE DECIDED, AND TO HOPEFULLY COME TO A COLLECTIVE, I WOULD SAY, BROAD AGREEMENT ON WHAT IN BUSINESS WE WOULD CALL THE TERM SHEET OR THE FRAMEWORK OF AN AGREEMENT. WE WON'T BE ABLE TO WRITE DOWN EVERY FINAL WORD ON THIS, BUT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO AGREE ON THE BROAD FRAMEWORK ON ACCOUNTABILITY. AND IF WE CAN DO THAT BY END OF DUBLIN AND WE'RE ALL HERE BY THE THOUSANDS TO DO THAT, THEN I THINK WE HAVE, BETWEEN END OF DUBLIN AND END OF NOVEMBER IN GOOD FAITH TO WORK TOGETHER TO WRAP THIS UP.
THAT'S THE PLAN. THAT'S THE BEST CASE PLAN. AND I HOPE IT IS THE PLAN BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER PLANS RIGHT NOW. WE DON'T HAVE ANY ROOM FOR ANY OTHER PLANS. SO THAT BRINGS ME TO WHAT IS LEFT TO BE DECIDED. WHAT IS THERE. IN MY PERSONAL CAPACITY AS SOMEONE WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL VERY INVOLVED AND ENGAGED IN THIS PROCESS BUT ALSO RECOGNIZING THE FACT THAT I AM LEAVING, AND, THEREFORE, I HAVE NO PARTICULAR POWER POINT HERE. I AM HERE SIMPLY TO SHARE MY UNDERSTANDING AND MY KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT I'M WATCHING AND TO HELP US ALL CONTINUE WITH OUR COMMON PRINCIPLES TO SOLVE THIS ISSUE. SO I BUILT THIS DECK. IT TOOK ME ABOUT 52 PERSONAL HOURS, WHICH I DON'T TYPICALLY HAVE SO THIS WAS MY EVENINGS AND MICROPROCESSOR NIGHTS TO BUILD THIS DECK IN ORDER TO HELP US JUST UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE. THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A VIEWPOINT. THIS IS A DECK. AND WHERE I FELT THERE ARE DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS, I PUT MULTIPLE APPROACHES. BUT I URGE YOU TO READ IT AND UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE IT MIGHT GIVE US A WAY OUT THIS WEEK TO FINISH OUR WORK. THE ONLY THING I'D LIKE TO SAY IS TO EMPHASIZE THE KEY POINTS THAT ARE LEFT FOR DECISION-MAKING. THE FIRST POINT IS HOW DO WE REACH -- HOW DO WE CREATE AT ICANN A BELIEVABLE, TRUSTED APPEAL MECHANISM FOR THE COMMUNITY? HOW DO WE DO THAT? SO WHEN THE COMMUNITY IS IN DISAGREEMENT WITH A BOARD DECISION, HOW DOES THE COMMUNITY EFFECTIVELY APPEAL THAT DECISION? OKAY? THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. TODAY THE COMMUNITY HAS NO BINDING MECHANISM OVER THE BOARD. AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT MY DECK IN SECTION 9, SECTION 9 CLEARLY SHOWS, WHOEVER MANAGING THE SLIDES, IF YOU COULD GO TO SECTION 9. SECTION 9, AND I THINK IT'S EASIER TO READ THE OTHER WAY IF YOU CAN, BUT IN SECTION 9, THERE IS A DESCRIPTION OF A BINDING ARBITRATION MECHANISM THAT IS ESSENTIALLY TAKEN FROM THE CCWG ACCOUNTABILITY PROPOSAL SECTION 5.1, WHICH IS MAKE AN IRP FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT IS BINDING. MAKE SURE ICANN PAYS FOR THE PARTY BRINGING THE IRP IN THE COMMUNITY, SO THERE'S NO QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. MAKE SURE THAT THIS IRP HAS A STANDING PANEL OF JUDGES THAT IS EXPERT AND AVAILABLE SO WE DON'T SPEND SIX MONTHS LOOKING FOR THEM EVERY TIME. MAKE SURE THAT THIS IRP IS EFFICIENT. WE DON'T WANT TO WAIT SIX YEARS FOR A DECISION. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THIS DECISION QUICKLY SO THIS IS WHAT THIS DECISION PROPOSES. I THINK THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ICANN -- AND I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR THEM HERE. I'M SPEAKING IN MY PERSONAL CAPACITY -- HAS ACCEPTED THIS MODEL. AND THAT'S A GOOD THING. AND I'LL BE CANDID WITH YOU. UNTIL NOW -- AND IF IT WASN'T THANKS TO THE EFFORT OF THE PEOPLE HERE TO MY RIGHT AND THEIR -- NOT JUST THEM, BUT OF COURSE THE CCWG WITH THEIR LEADERSHIP, THE BOARD OF ICANN HAD NOT EVER ACCEPTED A BINDING ARBITRATION. LET'S BE SUPER CLEAR ON THAT. THIS IS ING ARBITRATION MECHANISM. AND ITS DETAILS COME FROM THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMUNITY. NOT FROM THE BOARD. THIS IS A VERY POWERFUL NEW PROGRESS. AND THAT MEANS IF THE COMMUNITY IS IN DISAGREEMENT TO THE BOARD, IT HAS A RELIABLE MECHANISM TO GO TO A ARBITRATION COURT -- EXCUSE ME TO GO TO A PANEL WHICH IS STANDING AND GET A JUDGMENT, AN AWARD, JUDGMENT AGAINST A BOARD DECISION. NOW, THE CORE, THE COMMUNITY IS WORRIED WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE GET THIS? WHAT IF THE ICANN BOARD FLAUNTS IT? OR WHAT IF THE ICANN BOARD DOESN'T SHOW UP TO THE BINDING ARBITRATION? WELL, FIRST THEY SAY HERE VERY CLEARLY, IF ICANN CHOOSES NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COMMUNITY IRP DECISIONS, THE DECISION IS STILL BINDING. AND WE WILL PUT THAT IN THE BYLAWS. WE WILL MAKE SURE IT IS ENFORCED SO THAT THE COMMUNITY ALWAYS GETS A BINDING JUDGMENT THERE. THEN. NEXT THING BECOMES WELL, WHAT IF WE HAVE THE BINDING JUDGMENT AND ICANN DOES NOT ABIDE BY IT? WHICH COULD HAPPEN. I THINK IT'S REMOTE. IT'S NEVER HAPPENED. WE'VE NEVER HAD A JUDGMENT AGAINST ICANN THAT WAS NOT ABIDED BY. BUT IT COULD HAPPEN. AND IF I WERE IN YOUR SEATS OR IN THE COMMUNITY SEATS, I'D SAY LOOK, I WANT BELTS AND SUSPENDERS. IF YOU TELL ME THAT'S A BINDING AWARD, I NEED IT TO BE ENFORCEABLE. THE WAY TO ENFORCE A BINDING AWARD ON A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION IS TO GO TO A CALIFORNIA COURT AND ENFORCE IT. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT. NOW, I THINK THE CHANCES OF THIS ARE 00.00001%. BUT IT'S AN ENFORCEMENT. IT'S NECESSARY. WE NEED TO HAVE IT BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY HAVE ALREADY SAID WE NEED ENFORCEABILITY. SO THE ENFORCEABILITY IS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 15, APPROACH A. THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO REACH ENFORCEABILITY. THE COMMUNITY IS DISCUSSING A MODEL CALLED "THE DESIGNATOR" WHICH IS A MODEL TO ENFORCE, TO GO TO COURT AND SAY I'M A DESIGNATOR AND I WANT TO ENFORCE A BINDING AWARD. THAT'S POSSIBLE. THAT'S ONE WAY TO DO IT. THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DO IT. I'LL GIVE YOU A WAY THAT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN DISCUSSED IN MY PAPER. WE COULD IN OUR BYLAWS SAY THAT OUR OMBUDSMAN IS AN ENFORCER. AND OUR OMBUDSMAN BECOMES THE SINGLE DESIGNATOR THAT COULD SHOW UP AND ENFORCE ANY DECISION. WE CAN DO THAT TOO. THERE ARE MANY POSSIBILITIES. IT IS NOT FOR ME TO DECIDE WHAT RIGHT WAY TO GO. I THINK WE NEED TO RELY ON THE CCWG AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING HARD TO FIND A GOOD WAY TO ENFORCE. THE LAST THING I WANT TO BRING UP TO YOUR ATTENTION IS BOARD REMOVAL. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO UNDERSTAND THE CORPORATE WORLD, WHICH I COME FROM, IN THE CORPORATE WORLD, WHEN THE SHAREHOLDERS OF A CORPORATION ARE UPSET WITH THE ACTIONS OF A BOARD, WHAT DO THEY DO? THEY REMOVE THE BOARD. SHE HAVE A SHAREHOLDERS MEETING AND REMOVE THE BOARD OR REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS. SO, IF YOU LOOK AT MY SECTION 4, THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS. LET'S AGREE ON A PRINCIPLE. IS IT IMPORTANT THAT THE COMMUNITY BE ABLE TO REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS? DO WE BELIEVE THAT? I'LL SPEAK FOR MYSELF. I THINK YES. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITY TO BE ABLE TO REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS. THE QUESTION IS: HOW AND WHAT ARE THE RULES AROUND THAT? SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF I'M SITTING AT AN ICANN BOARD MEETING AND I'M ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS NOW, I JUST HAPPEN TO HAVE THE EASY SEAT. I'M JUST THE CEO SO I GET A BOARD SEAT. EVERYBODY ELSE HALLS TO GO THROUGH MANY, MANY COMMUNITY PROCESSS TO GET THERE. BUT MY FELLOW 15 BOARD MEMBERS, THEY SIT AT THE BOARD MEETING. WHAT IS OUR ULTIMATE ROLE? OUR ULTIMATE ROLE IS TO ACT AS THE PROTECTOR OF THE MISSION AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ICANN. THAT IS OUR ULTIMATE ROLE. IN FACT, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ICANN IS THE ONLY PLACE ULTIMATELY WHERE AFTER THINGS GO THROUGH YOU -- AND CLEARLY, GOVERNMENTS HAVE A BIG ROLE IN ENSURING THE PUBLIC PERFECT. BUT ONCE IT GETS TO A DECISION POINT, THE BOARD, WHICH INCLUDES PEOPLE FROM THE BUSINESS AND FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF ICANN, MUST UPHOLD THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IF THEY DON'T, WE LOST THAT OPPORTUNITY. NOW, IF I'M SITTING AT THE BOARD SEAT AND I KNOW THAT IF I DON'T DO WHAT MY COMMUNITY TELLS ME, MY NECK WILL BE CUT TOMORROW MORNING, HOW WILL I REALLY PAY ATTENTION TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST? THEREFORE, IF WE WANT TO REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS, WE SHOULD REMOVE THEM BECAUSE THEY DID NOT ADHERE TO THE BYLAWS, THE MISSION OF ICANN. AN SO OR AC CAN REMOVE THEIR BOARD MEMBER BUT THERE HAS TO BE A PROCESS. IT CANNOT BE THAT WE JUST REMOVE THEM BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T VOTE OUR WAY. THEN SUDDENLY, WE HAVE A BEHOLDEN, CAPTIVE BOARD. THAT'S NOT HOW WE WILL PRESERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ICANN. SO YES, LET'S HAVE BOARD REMOVAL. HERE WE PROPOSED SEVERAL IDEAS. EVERY BOARD MEMBER COULD SIGN A CONTRACT BEFORE THEY BECOME A BOARD MEMBER. AND THE CONTRACT INCLUDES CONDITIONS THAT THE COMMUNITY COULD SET. FOR EXAMPLE, REMEMBER THE BINDING ARBITRATION I JUST DISCUSSED? IF A BINDING ARBITRATION AWARD SAYS ICANN SHOULD DO X AND THE BOARD MEMBER VOTES AGAINST IT, YOU COULD PUT IN THEIR CONTRACT THAT IF THEY DO THAT, THEY MUST RESIGN. INSTANTLY. THEY'RE OFF THE BOARD. SO WE COULD PUT CONDITIONS TO HOLD BOARD MEMBERS TO THE THINGS WE CARE ABOUT. WE COULD ALSO MAKE SURE THAT THE BINDING ARBITRATION CAN REMOVE A BOARD MEMBER. WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THAT BINDING ARBITRATION, AS I JUST DESCRIBED BEFORE, OF COURSE, IS ENFORCEABLE. SO THEN YOU GIVE THE ULTIMATE CONTROL OF THAT BOARD MEMBER. I THINK THE CCWG IS MOVING RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OF BRINGING OUR COMMUNITY TOGETHER AROUND COMMON SOLUTIONS. I AM CONFIDENT THAT WITHIN A FEW DAYS WE WILL ALL BE CLEAR ON WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS. I THINK WE ARE IN SYNC. IN CLOSING, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SAY THIS: AS I LEAVE ICANN AND PREPARE TO GO, WHAT AM I MOST WORRIED ABOUT IN THIS PROCESS? WHAT IS THE THING THAT KEEPS ME UP AT NIGHT? WHEN I MEET MANY OF YOUR GOVERNMENTS AND I WAS JUST AT THE ITU MEETING IN BUDAPEST AND MET MANY, MANY MINISTERS AND GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS, WHAT THEY ASKED ME, WHAT ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT NOW THAT YOU'RE LEAVING? WHAT IS TOP OF YOUR MIND? I'LL BE CANDID WITH YOU. I AM VERY WORRIED THAT WE, AT THE END OF THIS ACCOUNTABILITY REFORM, END UP DAMAGING THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL. IF WE DAMAGE THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL, WHICH HAD STOOD -- HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME, AND CREATE ANY STRUCTURES THAT ACTUALLY MAKE US CAPTURABLE -- AND BY THE WAY, WE ALL THINK OF CAPTURE WRONGLY AS SOMETHING GOVERNMENTS COULD DO. FRANKLY, GOVERNMENTS AT ICANN HAVE BEEN PROBABLY THE MOST COOPERATIVE TO MAKE THIS PROCESS CONCLUDE PROPERLY. I AM MOST WORRIED ALSO OF SHIFTING CAPTURE TO SPECIAL INTERESTS. WE MUST MAKE SURE -- AND YOU GOVERNMENTS, MUST HELP US MAKE SURE THAT ICANN'S STRENGTH IS ITS INDEPENDENCE. ITS INDEPENDENCE. IF WE LOSE THAT INDEPENDENCE, WE LOSE THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL, WE LOSE EVERYTHING WE HAVE. WE MUST REMAIN INDEPENDENT. INDEPENDENT OF CAPTURE, INDEPENDENT OF SPECIAL INTERESTS, AND INSTEAD SERVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THAT IS MY BIGGEST WORRY. AND MY CHANCE, AND YOUR CHANCE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS WEEK, IS TO HELP US MAKE SURE WE STICK TO THESE PRINCIPLES AND WE KEEP ICANN DIVERSE, INCLUSIVE, OPEN, AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER. THANK YOU.
CHAIR SCHNEIDER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, FADI. I NOTE THAT KAVOUSS, OUR COLLEAGUE FROM IRAN HAD TO LEAVE THE MEETING BUT WILL COME BACK. SO HE ANNOUNCED THAT HE WILL WANT TO TAKE THE FLOOR. SO IN CASE I FORGET IT, PLEASE REMIND ME. AND I NOTE ALSO THAT MATHIEU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING AND THEN I GIVE THE FLOOR TO ALL OF YOU, THANK YOU.
MATTHIEU WEILL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIR. NO, I'LL SPEAK IN ENGLISH FOR THIS ONE. AS YOU WILL HAVE ALL NOTED, THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF DUPLICATION BETWEEN FADI'S SPEECH AND THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO CORRECT A FEW POINTS ABOUT THE WAY FADI HAS CHARACTERIZED THE WORK OF OUR GROUP WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT FOR THIS ROOM TO BE AWARE OF. PLAINTIFF NUMBER ONE, THE SLIDE DECK THAT FADI HAS INTRODUCED, GIVEN THAT WE'VE HAD MORE THAN 14 HOURS OF MEETING ALREADY IS OUTDATED. I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THAT YOU REFER TO OLGA'S PRESENTATION AS WELL AS THE ONE WE'VE JUST PROVIDED. BECAUSE YES, THINGS ARE MOVING FAST. SO FOCUSING ON THE MOST RECENT MATERIAL CAN BE VERY IMPORTANT TO ENSURE YOU HAVE EFFICIENT DEBATES AND DISCUSSIONS. SECONDLY, FADI REFERRED TO OUR GROUP AS INVESTIGATING A DESIGNATOR MODEL. THAT IS NOT ADEQUATELY CAPTURING WHERE WE ARE NOW. WHERE WE ARE NOW IS THAT OUR SECOND REPORT IS FOCUSED ON A SOLE MEMBERSHIP MODEL AND THERE HAS BEEN WORK. AND THE WAY TO INVESTIGATE HOW A SOLE DESIGNATOR MODEL WOULD LOOK LIKE BUT IN NO WAY IS OUR GROUP AT A POINT WHERE IT HAS BEEN SHIFTING ITS FOCUS ON SOMETHING ELSE. THERE IS -- IT'S ALSO USEFUL TO REPORT THAT THE ARBITRATION MODEL THAT HAS BEEN PART OF THE BOARD COMMENT IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT HAS BEEN ASSESSED. THERE IS -- THERE HAS BEEN LEGAL REVIEWS WORK IN THE WORK PARTIES ON THIS. AND I THINK A SUMMARY COULD BE THERE ARE SERIOUS LEGAL UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT ITS EFFICIENCY. THERE'S EVEN DEBATE AMONG LAWYERS. THAT'S WHY I'M MENTIONING UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT LEGAL EFFICIENCY. AND FINALLY, I THINK THE DISCUSSION ON THE BOARD MEMBER REMOVAL WAS INTERESTING AND WE GOT FADI'S PERSONAL VIEW ON THIS. BUT IT'S WORTH NOTEING THAT THIS VERY MOFEN WE'VE MADE TREMENDOUS PROGRESS WITH A LOT OF BOARD MEMBERS BEING PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN EXPRESSING THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE WAY FORWARD THAT WE HAVE FOUND, SO I THINK THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE PROGRESS WE'RE MAKING. SO I WILL JOIN FADI IN SAYING THAT WE HAVE LITTLE TIME. THIS IS REALLY THE MOMENT TO ENGAGE, DISCUSS, AND DISCUSS ON THE BASIS OF FACTS THAT ARE ACCURATE AND AVOID SPREADING ANY UNCERTAINTIES THAT MIGHT MAKE THE DECISION HARDER TO MAKE. AND THIS IS OUR COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl Date: Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 4:52 PM Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fadi on our work
*FADI CHEHADE*: THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME AND ALL OF US TO COME AND TAKE SOME TIME WITH YOU. I WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH THREE SUBSTANTIVE POINTS.
THE FIRST ONE, WHATEVER WE DO, MAKE YOUR KEY PRINCIPLE THE AVOIDANCE OF CAPTURE. IT IS CRITICAL. IT IS HOW WE HOLD TO THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL. IF WE ARE CAPTURED OR IF WE CREATE A MODEL THAT ALLOWS FOR CAPTURE BY SPECIAL INTERESTS OR SPECIAL AGENDAS, IN MY OPINION, THE ICANN WE WERE ALL HANDED WOULD HAVE BEEN RUINED.
This principle is what made ICANN of what it's today, so advocating for it is actually advocating for the continuation of its current form, if that's what the community wants.
Although the current model was successful in avoiding capture from the different parts of the community, it hasn't prevented the capture from the corporation itself and from the corporation becoming more interested in its own survival than on serving its mission. But besides this particular special interest, which is neutral in nature, I agree that it prevented capture from the stakeholder sectors, which is indeed remarkable.
TWO, WATCH CAREFULLY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES THAT REFOCUS AND ANCHOR ICANN IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS AS OPPOSED TO CONTINUING THE PROJECT OF GLOBALIZATION WE ALL STARTED. WATCH FOR THAT. IF ALL ROADS END THERE, THAT'S ONE THING. BUT IF ALL ROADS START AT THE COURTS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. SO THIS IS THE DISTINCTION.
Agree with this precaution, but it's curious that the board proposal actually increases that dependency.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
The logorrhea of the Chehadé-Waffler in front of the GAC can be condensed into one word: "Bobelebobobeleo" For the non-cineasts, it is a Michael Rooker quote, the link of which took some time to find: www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0FCcjwV9Kw&sns=em(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0FCcjwV9Kw&sns=em) el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s On 17 Oct 2015, 17:33 +0100, Steve DelBianco<sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, wrote:
Here were Fadi’s remarks to GAC:
FADI CHEHADE:THANK YOU, THOMAS, AND THANK YOU TO THE GAC CHAIRS AND VICE CHAIRS HERE WHO INVITED ME TO -- WHO ACCEPTED MY OFFER TO COME AND SPEAK.
I THINK MANY OF YOU MUST BE, BY NOW, TIRED BY THE NUMBER OF WORDS THAT WE ALL NEED TO SIFT THROUGH TO FIGURE OUT A WAY FORWARD.I AM, TOO.IT'S A LOT OF WORK FOR MANY OF US TO CATCH UP WITH EVERYTHING.AND I DO REALIZE THAT, UNLIKE ME, MOST OF YOU HAVE OTHER JOBS TO DO ALSO, AND A BIG PORTFOLIO OF ACTIVITIES TO DO, AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO KEEP UP WITH EVERYTHING HERE.
I MUST SAY THAT MOST OF YOU KNOW THAT I WILL BE LEAVING ICANN IN A FEW MONTHS, AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, I'M -- I HAVE, FRANKLY, NO STAKE HERE OTHER THAN TO CONTINUE STICKING TO THE PRINCIPLES THAT I SHARED WITH YOU FROM MY VERY FIRST MEETING IN PRAGUE, THE PRINCIPLES OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER COMMUNITY, PRINCIPLES OF WORKING PARTY TOGETHER WITH RESPECT, TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT THE WORLDNEEDS:A PLACE WHERE ALL STAKEHOLDERS COME TOGETHER AND ACTUALLY PRODUCE REAL SOLUTIONS. I THINK THE WORLD RIGHT NOW IS VERY, VERY DISAPPOINTED WITH ITS INSTITUTIONS.IF YOU LOOK AT THE EDELMAN TRUST INDEX WHICH HAS BEEN COMING OUT EVERY YEAR, EVERY SINGLE TYPE OF INSTITUTION ON THE PLANET IS LOSING TRUST FROM ITS PEOPLE.GOVERNMENTS, BUSINESSES, EVEN ACADEMIA IS STARTING TO DROP.NGOs, WAY DOWN.THIS IS THE REALITY OF THE WORLD WE ARE LIVING IN NOW.PEOPLE ARE EMPOWERED.THE INTERNET INFORMS, AND TRUST IS WANING.IT'S A DIFFICULT PLACE TO BE.
AND IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS ENVIRONMENT, ICANN OPENED UP ITS ENTIRE CONCEPT AS A MULTISTAKEHOLDER GOVERNANCE PLACE AND SAID LET'S MAKE IT BETTER.AND IN THE PROCESS, WE HAVE SEEN ENORMOUS WORK DONE BY HOUR COMMUNITY, LED BY THE THREE CHAIRS SITTING TO MY RIGHT WHOM YOU MET, THAT HAVE DONE, IN MY OPINION, A REMARKABLE JOB, BECAUSE THIS IS A DIFFICULT TASK.IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT TASK. I WAS THREE WEEKS AGO HAVING LUNCH WITH ALL THE PROFESSORS OF THE KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT AT HARVARD.THEY WERE ASKING ME HOW WAS IT GOING.HOW WAS ICANN'S ACCOUNTABILITY DISCUSSIONS GOING.AND THEY WERE SHOCKED BY HOW FAR WE'VE GOTTEN AND WHAT WE'RE DOING BECAUSE THE EXPERIMENT YOU'RE INVOLVED IN IS GROUND BREAKING.THERE IS NOTHING LIKE IT.AND THEY ADMITTED THAT NEITHER GOVERNMENTS NOR THEM AS ACADEMIC PROFESSORS OF GOVERNANCE HAVE EVER FACED SOMETHING LIKE THIS WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE A MODEL TO SHARE POWER BETWEEN VERY DIVERSE, VERY BROAD INTERESTS IN ONE PLACE WITHOUT THE POWER OF A FLAG AND WITHOUT THE POWER OF A LEGAL ENVIRONMENT.WE ARE DOING IT AS A COMMUNITY.THIS IS DIFFICULT STUFF.
SO AS WE FACE THIS DIFFICULTY, WE NEED TO STAY CALM AND WE NEED TO STAY COMPOSED, AND WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT ALL OF US ARE NOW EXPOSED TO THE SAUSAGE FACTORY.WE'RE WATCHING HOW DECISIONS ARE GETTING MADE AND FRAMEWORKS ARE BEING BUILT.AND THAT'S NOT EASY.
SOME OF US ARE SAYING THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL IS FALLING APART.IF WE SAY THAT, THEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL IS.THIS IS THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL.THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. WHAT THESE THREE HAVE BEEN PRESIDING OVER IS PRECISELY WHAT THEY SHOULD BE PRESIDING OVER:DIALOGUE, DISCUSSION, VIGOROUS, PASSIONATE POSITIONS. THIS IS HOW IT WORKS.YOU ALL KNOW THAT.YOU'VE SEEN IT IN OTHER PLACES, AND IT'S HAPPENING HERE.THAT'S NO DIFFERENT.
SO I WANT US TO START BY BEING VERY CONFIDENT THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT PROCESS THAT WE STARTED TOGETHER.THIS IS EXACTLY HOW OUTCOMES HAPPEN IN A MULTISTAKEHOLDER ENVIRONMENT.AND NOW GOVERNMENTS, LIKE YOU, WATCH THIS AND SAY, "THIS IS NOT HOW WE NORMALLY WORK.THIS IS NOT HOW WE EXPECT THINGS TO WORK." BUT THIS IS OKAY.THIS IS AN INVITATION AS MANY OF YOU, LIKE KAVOUSS AND OTHERS HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROCESS, ARE WATCHING AND BUILDING WITHIN THAT PROCESS. I AM VERY CERTAIN THAT BY THE END OF DUBLIN, WE WILL BE IN A BETTER PLACE IN TERMS OF CLARITY AS TO HOW THIS PROCESS WILL MOVE FORWARD.AND WE HAVE TO.WE HAVE TO.IF WE DON'T, THEN I THINK THE TIMELINE THAT THE COMMUNITY SET FOR THE TRANSITION, WHICH IS FOR THE CONTRACT WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO END ON SEPTEMBER 30th, 2016, THAT TIMELINE WHICH THE COMMUNITY SET WILL NO LONGER BE POSSIBLE. SO THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU -- FOR US TO NOTE.THE COMMUNITY SET A TIMELINE.THE CONTRACT WAS EXTENDED FOR ONE YEAR ACCORDING TO THAT TIMELINE, IF WE DO NOT GET A PROPOSAL IN THE HANDS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, THAT TIMELINE IS IN GREAT JEOPARDY.IT DOESN'T MEAN BE WE CAN'T MAKE THE TRANSITION IN 2017, '18 OR '19.THERE'S NO DEADLINE.BUT THE TIMELINE WE SET WILL BE IN JEOPARDY.NOW, HOW DO WE GET TO A PROPOSAL AT THE END OF 2016?WELL, LET'SBACK OFF THE STEPS.THE BOARD IS TO HAND THE GOVERNMENT THE PROPOSAL.TO DO THAT, THE BOARDNEEDS TO RECEIVE THE PROPOSAL.WHO DOES THE BOARD RECEIVE THE PROPOSAL FROM?NOT THEM.NOT THE ICG; RIGHT?THE PROPOSAL HAS TO BE FIRST GONE THROUGH THE CHARTERING ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING YOU, AND RECEIVE APPROVAL.ONCE YOU APPROVE IT, WE WILL THEN TAKE IT AND GIVE IT TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. NOW, YOU NEED TIME TO REVIEW IT AND APPROVE IT.LET'S ASSUME THAT WILL TAKE YOU A MONTH.IS THAT -- PROBABLY IN GOVERNMENT TERMS, THAT'S TIME TO MAKE A QUICK READ, BUT WE WILL NOT HAVE MORE THAN A MONTH TO DO THAT.I'M BEING CANDID WITH YOU. SO IF YOU GET THIS BY END OF NOVEMBER, THEN YOU HAVE A MONTH TO LOOK AT IT, AND THAT'S THE ONLY MONTH WE HAVE THEN TO TAKE IT AND PASS IT ON TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. NOW, FOR THEM TO FINISH BY END OF NOVEMBER,WE NEED TWO PARTS.WE NEED THE ICG PROPOSAL, AND WE KNEELED THE CCWG PROPOSAL.THE ICG PROPOSAL IS ALL BUT DONE.SO WE HAVE NO DANGER OF TIMELINE THERE. THE CCWG PROPOSAL IS NOT DONE.THEREFORE, THE FOCUS RIGHT NOW IS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THAT DONE BY THE END OF NOVEMBER SO IT CAN COME TO YOU AND HOPEFULLY, WITH YOUR HELP, NOT YOU, JUST THE GAC, ALL THE CHARTERING ORGANIZATIONS, WE CAN REVIEW IT, SUPPORT IT AND THEN HAND IT TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENTBY THE END OF THIS YEAR. THIS GIVES THE NTIA THE TIME IT NEEDS TO REVIEW IT, TO HOPEFULLY GIVE US THE GO AHEAD, AND THEN ALLOW MY TEAM TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSAL.AND PEOPLE TELL US, "WHY AREN'T YOU START STARTING TO IMPLEMENT TODAY?"WELL, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A PROPOSAL.WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO IMPLEMENT?WELL, THERE ARE SOME PARTS OF THE PROPOSAL YOU CAN START TO IMPLEMENT.FINE.AND AND WE HAVE.AND THIS AFTERNOON AKRAM WILL DESCRIBE SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES WE HAVE STARTED TO IMPLEMENT. SO I'M JUST GIVING YOU THIS PICTURE SO YOU CAN APPRECIATE HOW THESE DOMINOES WILL FIT SO THE GOVERNMENT HAS ITS TIME IN JANUARY, FEBRUARY TO REVIEW THE PROPOSAL.REMEMBER, THERE IS A BILL IN CONGRESS CALLED THE DOTCOM ACT THAT HAS PASSED THE HOUSE BUT HAS NOT PASSED THE SENATE.IF IT PASSES THE SENATE OR IF IT'S INCLUDED IN SOME KIND OF PACKAGE AT THE END OF THIS YEAR IN THE GOVERNMENT OMNIBUS PROPOSAL, THEN IT WILL BECOME LAW.AND IF IT BECOMES LAW, THEN THAT BILL ALONE WILL PAD MORE MONTHS ON LARRY'S WORK, BECAUSE THAT BILL SAYS THAT LARRY WILL NEED TO CERTIFY THAT OUR PROPOSAL MEETS THE U.S. NTIA REQUIREMENTS.AND ONCE HE CERTIFIES, HE STARTS A CLOCK OF A COUPLE OF MONTHS OR SO FOR CONGRESS TO ENTER INTO DIALOGUE WITH HIM. SO THESE ARE THE FACTS THAT WE ALL NEED TO APPRECIATE, ALL OF WHICH POINT TO THE WORK UPON US RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS HOW DO WE GET THROUGH THIS VERY IMPORTANT PHASE OF GETTING THE WORK OF THE CCWG COMPLETED BY END OF NOVEMBER.HOW FAR IS END OF NOVEMBER, LEON?THAT'S LIKE FIVE WEEKS?SIX WEEKS?
LEON SANCHEZ:NOT ENOUGH. FADI CHEHADE:NOT ENOUGH.SO WE'RE FIVE, SIX WEEKS AWAY FROM THOSE FOLKS WHO HAVE DEDICATED INCREDIBLE, INCREDIBLE HOURS OF THEIR TIME.THEY ALL HAVE DAY JOBS, BY THE WAY, IN CASE YOU DIDN'T KNOW.MATHIEU RUNS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE LARGEST ccTLDs IN THE WORLD IN FRANCE.THOMAS HAS A FAMILY AND A BUSINESS TO SUPPORT, BECAUSE THIS DOESN'T PAY THE BILLS, BUT HE HAS GIVEN A LOT OF HIS TIME.AND LEON ALSO THE SAME, AS AN ATTORNEY IN MEXICO CITY.BUT THEY ARE LEADING A MASSIVE EFFORT WITH THE RAPPORTEURS, AND WE THANK THEM AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN FOR WHAT THEY DO. HOWEVER, TO R ALL OF US, FOR THEIR SAKE AND OUR SAKE, WE NED TO GET THIS TO A CLOSURE.WHY DUBLIN THEN BECOMES IMPORTANT.DUBLIN BECOMES THE MOMENT WHEN WE CAN HAVE A THOUGHTFUL ASSESSMENT OF WHAT'S LEFT ON THE TABLE, WHAT NEEDS TO BE DECIDED, AND TO HOPEFULLY COME TO A COLLECTIVE, I WOULD SAY, BROAD AGREEMENT ON WHAT IN BUSINESS WE WOULD CALL THE TERM SHEET OR THE FRAMEWORK OF AN AGREEMENT.WE WON'T BE ABLE TO WRITE DOWN EVERY FINAL WORD ON THIS, BUT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO AGREE ON THE BROAD FRAMEWORK ON ACCOUNTABILITY.AND IF WE CAN DO THAT BY END OF DUBLIN AND WE'RE ALL HERE BY THE THOUSANDS TO DO THAT, THEN I THINK WE HAVE, BETWEEN END OF DUBLIN AND END OF NOVEMBER IN GOOD FAITH TO WORK TOGETHER TO WRAP THISUP.
THAT'S THE PLAN.THAT'S THE BEST CASE PLAN.AND I HOPE IT IS THE PLAN BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER PLANS RIGHT NOW.WE DON'T HAVE ANY ROOM FOR ANY OTHER PLANS. SO THAT BRINGS ME TO WHAT IS LEFT TO BE DECIDED.WHAT IS THERE.IN MY PERSONAL CAPACITY AS SOMEONE WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL VERY INVOLVED AND ENGAGED IN THIS PROCESS BUT ALSO RECOGNIZING THE FACT THAT I AM LEAVING, AND, THEREFORE, I HAVE NO PARTICULAR POWER POINT HERE.I AM HERE SIMPLY TO SHARE MY UNDERSTANDING AND MY KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT I'M WATCHING AND TO HELP US ALL CONTINUE WITH OUR COMMON PRINCIPLES TO SOLVE THIS ISSUE.SO I BUILT THIS DECK.IT TOOK ME ABOUT 52 PERSONAL HOURS, WHICH I DON'T TYPICALLY HAVE SO THIS WAS MY EVENINGS AND MICROPROCESSOR NIGHTS TO BUILD THIS DECK IN ORDER TO HELP US JUST UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE.THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A VIEWPOINT.THIS IS A DECK.AND WHERE I FELT THERE ARE DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS, I PUT MULTIPLE APPROACHES. BUT I URGE YOU TO READ IT AND UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE IT MIGHT GIVE US A WAY OUT THIS WEEK TO FINISH OUR WORK. THE ONLY THING I'D LIKE TO SAY IS TO EMPHASIZE THE KEY POINTS THAT ARE LEFT FOR DECISION-MAKING.THE FIRST POINT IS HOW DO WE REACH -- HOW DO WE CREATE AT ICANN A BELIEVABLE, TRUSTED APPEAL MECHANISM FOR THE COMMUNITY?HOW DO WE DO THAT? SO WHEN THE COMMUNITY IS IN DISAGREEMENT WITH A BOARD DECISION, HOW DOES THE COMMUNITY EFFECTIVELY APPEAL THATDECISION?OKAY?THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. TODAY THE COMMUNITY HAS NO BINDING MECHANISM OVER THE BOARD.AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT MY DECK IN SECTION 9, SECTION 9 CLEARLY SHOWS, WHOEVER MANAGING THE SLIDES, IF YOU COULD GO TO SECTION 9. SECTION 9, AND I THINK IT'S EASIER TO READ THE OTHER WAY IF YOU CAN, BUT IN SECTION 9, THERE IS A DESCRIPTION OF A BINDING ARBITRATION MECHANISM THAT IS ESSENTIALLY TAKEN FROM THE CCWG ACCOUNTABILITY PROPOSAL SECTION 5.1, WHICH IS MAKE AN IRP FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT IS BINDING.MAKE SURE ICANN PAYS FOR THE PARTY BRINGING THE IRP IN THE COMMUNITY, SO THERE'S NO QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T AFFORD IT.MAKE SURE THAT THIS IRP HAS A STANDING PANEL OF JUDGES THAT IS EXPERT AND AVAILABLE SO WE DON'T SPEND SIX MONTHS LOOKING FOR THEM EVERY TIME.MAKE SURE THAT THIS IRP IS EFFICIENT.WE DON'T WANT TO WAIT SIX YEARS FOR A DECISION.WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THIS DECISION QUICKLY SO THIS IS WHAT THIS DECISION PROPOSES.I THINK THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ICANN -- AND I'M NOTSPEAKING FOR THEM HERE.I'M SPEAKING IN MY PERSONAL CAPACITY -- HAS ACCEPTED THIS MODEL. AND THAT'S A GOOD THING. AND I'LL BE CANDID WITH YOU.UNTIL NOW -- AND IF IT WASN'T THANKS TO THE EFFORT OF THE PEOPLE HERE TO MY RIGHT AND THEIR -- NOT JUST THEM, BUT OF COURSE THE CCWG WITH THEIR LEADERSHIP, THE BOARD OF ICANN HAD NOT EVER ACCEPTED A BINDING ARBITRATION.LET'S BE SUPER CLEAR ON THAT.THIS IS ING ARBITRATION MECHANISM.AND ITS DETAILS COME FROM THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMUNITY.NOT FROM THE BOARD.THIS IS A VERY POWERFUL NEW PROGRESS.AND THAT MEANS IF THE COMMUNITY IS IN DISAGREEMENT TO THE BOARD, IT HAS A RELIABLE MECHANISM TO GO TO A ARBITRATION COURT -- EXCUSE ME TO GO TO A PANEL WHICH IS STANDING AND GET A JUDGMENT, AN AWARD, JUDGMENT AGAINST A BOARD DECISION. NOW, THE CORE, THE COMMUNITY IS WORRIED WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE GET THIS?WHAT IF THE ICANN BOARD FLAUNTS IT?OR WHAT IF THE ICANN BOARD DOESN'T SHOW UP TO THE BINDING ARBITRATION? WELL, FIRST THEY SAY HERE VERY CLEARLY, IF ICANN CHOOSES NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COMMUNITY IRP DECISIONS, THE DECISION IS STILL BINDING.AND WE WILL PUT THAT IN THE BYLAWS.WE WILL MAKE SURE IT IS ENFORCED SO THAT THE COMMUNITY ALWAYS GETS A BINDING JUDGMENT THERE.THEN.NEXT THING BECOMES WELL, WHAT IF WE HAVE THE BINDING JUDGMENT AND ICANN DOES NOT ABIDE BY IT? WHICH COULD HAPPEN.I THINK IT'S REMOTE.IT'S NEVER HAPPENED.WE'VE NEVER HAD A JUDGMENT AGAINST ICANN THAT WAS NOT ABIDED BY.BUT IT COULD HAPPEN.AND IF I WERE IN YOUR SEATS OR IN THE COMMUNITY SEATS, I'D SAY LOOK, I WANT BELTS AND SUSPENDERS.IF YOU TELL ME THAT'S A BINDING AWARD, I NEED IT TO BE ENFORCEABLE. THE WAY TO ENFORCE A BINDING AWARD ON A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION IS TO GO TO A CALIFORNIA COURT AND ENFORCE IT. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT. NOW, I THINK THE CHANCES OF THIS ARE 00.00001%.BUT IT'S AN ENFORCEMENT.IT'S NECESSARY.WE NEED TO HAVE IT BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY HAVE ALREADY SAID WE NEED ENFORCEABILITY. SO THE ENFORCEABILITY IS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 15, APPROACH A. THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO REACH ENFORCEABILITY.THE COMMUNITY IS DISCUSSING A MODEL CALLED "THE DESIGNATOR"WHICH IS A MODEL TO ENFORCE, TO GO TO COURT AND SAY I'M A DESIGNATOR AND I WANT TO ENFORCE A BINDING AWARD.THAT'S POSSIBLE. THAT'S ONE WAY TO DO IT.THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DOIT.I'LL GIVE YOU A WAY THAT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN DISCUSSED IN MY PAPER.WE COULD IN OUR BYLAWS SAY THAT OUR OMBUDSMAN IS AN ENFORCER.AND OUR OMBUDSMAN BECOMES THE SINGLE DESIGNATOR THAT COULD SHOW UP AND ENFORCE ANY DECISION.WE CAN DO THAT TOO.THERE ARE MANY POSSIBILITIES.IT IS NOT FOR ME TO DECIDE WHAT RIGHT WAY TO GO.I THINK WE NEED TO RELY ON THE CCWG AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING HARD TO FIND A GOOD WAY TO ENFORCE. THE LAST THING I WANT TO BRING UP TO YOUR ATTENTION IS BOARD REMOVAL.FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO UNDERSTAND THE CORPORATE WORLD, WHICH I COME FROM, IN THE CORPORATE WORLD, WHEN THE SHAREHOLDERS OF A CORPORATION ARE UPSET WITH THE ACTIONS OF A BOARD, WHAT DO THEY DO?THEY REMOVE THE BOARD.SHE HAVE A SHAREHOLDERS MEETING AND REMOVE THE BOARD OR REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS.SO, IF YOU LOOK AT MY SECTION 4, THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS.LET'S AGREE ON A PRINCIPLE.IS IT IMPORTANT THAT THE COMMUNITY BE ABLE TO REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS?DO WE BELIEVE THAT?I'LL SPEAK FOR MYSELF.I THINK YES.I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITY TO BE ABLE TO REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS. THE QUESTION IS:HOW AND WHAT ARE THE RULES AROUND THAT?SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF I'M SITTING AT AN ICANN BOARDMEETING AND I'M ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS NOW, I JUST HAPPEN TO HAVE THE EASY SEAT.I'M JUST THE CEO SO I GET A BOARD SEAT.EVERYBODY ELSE HALLS TO GO THROUGH MANY, MANY COMMUNITY PROCESSS TO GET THERE.BUT MY FELLOW 15 BOARD MEMBERS, THEY SIT AT THE BOARD MEETING.WHAT IS OUR ULTIMATE ROLE?OUR ULTIMATE ROLE IS TO ACT AS THE PROTECTOR OF THE MISSION AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ICANN.THAT IS OUR ULTIMATE ROLE.IN FACT, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ICANN IS THE ONLY PLACE ULTIMATELY WHERE AFTER THINGS GO THROUGH YOU -- AND CLEARLY, GOVERNMENTS HAVE A BIG ROLE IN ENSURING THE PUBLIC PERFECT.BUT ONCE IT GETS TO A DECISION POINT, THE BOARD, WHICH INCLUDES PEOPLE FROM THE BUSINESS AND FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF ICANN, MUST UPHOLD THE PUBLIC INTEREST.IF THEY DON'T, WE LOST THAT OPPORTUNITY. NOW, IF I'M SITTING AT THE BOARD SEAT AND I KNOW THAT IF I DON'T DO WHAT MY COMMUNITY TELLS ME, MY NECK WILL BE CUT TOMORROW MORNING, HOW WILL I REALLY PAY ATTENTION TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST?THEREFORE, IF WE WANT TO REMOVE BOARD MEMBERS, WE SHOULD REMOVE THEM BECAUSE THEY DID NOT ADHERE TO THE BYLAWS, THE MISSION OF ICANN. AN SO OR AC CAN REMOVE THEIR BOARD MEMBER BUT THERE HAS TO BE A PROCESS.IT CANNOT BE THAT WE JUST REMOVE THEM BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T VOTE OUR WAY.THEN SUDDENLY, WE HAVE A BEHOLDEN, CAPTIVE BOARD.THAT'S NOT HOW WE WILL PRESERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ICANN. SO YES, LET'S HAVE BOARD REMOVAL.HERE WE PROPOSED SEVERAL IDEAS.EVERY BOARD MEMBER COULD SIGN A CONTRACT BEFORE THEY BECOME A BOARD MEMBER.AND THE CONTRACT INCLUDES CONDITIONS THAT THE COMMUNITY COULD SET.FOR EXAMPLE, REMEMBER THE BINDING ARBITRATION I JUST DISCUSSED?IF A BINDING ARBITRATION AWARD SAYS ICANN SHOULD DO X AND THE BOARD MEMBER VOTES AGAINST IT, YOU COULD PUT IN THEIR CONTRACT THAT IF THEY DO THAT, THEY MUST RESIGN.INSTANTLY.THEY'RE OFF THE BOARD.SO WE COULD PUT CONDITIONS TO HOLD BOARD MEMBERS TO THE THINGS WE CARE ABOUT.WE COULD ALSO MAKE SURE THAT THE BINDING ARBITRATION CAN REMOVE A BOARD MEMBER.WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THAT BINDING ARBITRATION, AS I JUST DESCRIBED BEFORE, OF COURSE, IS ENFORCEABLE.SO THEN YOU GIVE THE ULTIMATE CONTROL OF THAT BOARD MEMBER. I THINK THE CCWG IS MOVING RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OF BRINGING OUR COMMUNITY TOGETHER AROUND COMMON SOLUTIONS.I AM CONFIDENT THAT WITHIN A FEW DAYS WE WILL ALL BE CLEAR ON WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS.I THINK WE ARE IN SYNC. IN CLOSING, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SAY THIS:AS I LEAVE ICANN AND PREPARE TO GO, WHAT AM I MOST WORRIED ABOUT IN THIS PROCESS?WHAT IS THE THING THAT KEEPS ME UP AT NIGHT?WHEN I MEET MANY OF YOUR GOVERNMENTS AND I WAS JUST AT THEITU MEETING IN BUDAPEST AND MET MANY, MANY MINISTERS AND GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS, WHAT THEY ASKED ME, WHAT ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT NOW THAT YOU'RE LEAVING?WHAT IS TOP OF YOUR MIND?I'LL BE CANDID WITH YOU.I AM VERY WORRIED THAT WE, AT THE END OF THIS ACCOUNTABILITY REFORM, END UP DAMAGING THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL.IF WE DAMAGE THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL, WHICH HAD STOOD -- HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME, AND CREATE ANY STRUCTURES THAT ACTUALLY MAKE US CAPTURABLE -- AND BY THE WAY, WE ALL THINK OF CAPTURE WRONGLY AS SOMETHING GOVERNMENTS COULD DO.FRANKLY, GOVERNMENTS AT ICANN HAVE BEEN PROBABLY THE MOST COOPERATIVE TO MAKE THIS PROCESS CONCLUDE PROPERLY.I AM MOST WORRIED ALSO OF SHIFTING CAPTURE TO SPECIAL INTERESTS.WE MUST MAKE SURE -- AND YOU GOVERNMENTS, MUST HELP US MAKE SURE THAT ICANN'S STRENGTH IS ITS INDEPENDENCE.ITS INDEPENDENCE.IF WE LOSE THAT INDEPENDENCE, WE LOSE THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL, WE LOSE EVERYTHING WE HAVE.WE MUST REMAIN INDEPENDENT.INDEPENDENT OF CAPTURE, INDEPENDENT OF SPECIAL INTERESTS, AND INSTEAD SERVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST.THAT IS MY BIGGEST WORRY.AND MY CHANCE, AND YOUR CHANCE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS WEEK, IS TO HELP US MAKE SURE WE STICK TO THESE PRINCIPLES AND WE KEEP ICANN DIVERSE, INCLUSIVE, OPEN, AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER.THANK YOU.
CHAIR SCHNEIDER:THANK YOU VERY MUCH, FADI.I NOTE THAT KAVOUSS, OUR COLLEAGUE FROM IRAN HAD TO LEAVE THEMEETING BUT WILL COME BACK.SO HE ANNOUNCED THAT HE WILL WANT TO TAKE THE FLOOR.SO IN CASE I FORGET IT, PLEASE REMIND ME.AND I NOTE ALSO THAT MATHIEU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING AND THEN I GIVE THE FLOOR TO ALL OF YOU, THANKYOU.
MATTHIEU WEILL:THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIR.NO, I'LL SPEAK IN ENGLISH FOR THIS ONE. AS YOU WILL HAVE ALL NOTED, THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF DUPLICATION BETWEEN FADI'S SPEECH AND THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS.I WOULD LIKE TO CORRECT A FEW POINTS ABOUT THE WAY FADI HAS CHARACTERIZED THE WORK OF OUR GROUP WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT FOR THIS ROOM TO BE AWARE OF.PLAINTIFF NUMBER ONE, THE SLIDE DECK THAT FADI HAS INTRODUCED, GIVEN THAT WE'VE HAD MORE THAN 14 HOURS OF MEETING ALREADY ISOUTDATED.I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THAT YOU REFER TO OLGA'S PRESENTATION AS WELL AS THE ONE WE'VE JUST PROVIDED.BECAUSE YES, THINGS ARE MOVING FAST.SO FOCUSING ON THE MOST RECENT MATERIAL CAN BE VERY IMPORTANT TO ENSURE YOU HAVE EFFICIENT DEBATES AND DISCUSSIONS. SECONDLY, FADI REFERRED TO OUR GROUP AS INVESTIGATING A DESIGNATOR MODEL.THAT IS NOT ADEQUATELY CAPTURING WHERE WE ARE NOW.WHERE WE ARE NOW IS THAT OUR SECOND REPORT IS FOCUSED ON A SOLE MEMBERSHIP MODEL AND THERE HAS BEEN WORK.AND THE WAY TO INVESTIGATE HOW A SOLE DESIGNATOR MODEL WOULD LOOK LIKE BUT IN NO WAY IS OUR GROUP AT A POINT WHERE IT HAS BEEN SHIFTING ITS FOCUS ON SOMETHING ELSE. THERE IS -- IT'S ALSO USEFUL TO REPORT THAT THE ARBITRATION MODEL THAT HAS BEEN PART OF THE BOARD COMMENT IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT HAS BEEN ASSESSED.THERE IS -- THERE HAS BEEN LEGAL REVIEWS WORK IN THE WORK PARTIES ON THIS.AND I THINK A SUMMARY COULD BE THERE ARE SERIOUS LEGAL UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT ITS EFFICIENCY. THERE'S EVEN DEBATE AMONG LAWYERS.THAT'S WHY I'M MENTIONING UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT LEGAL EFFICIENCY. AND FINALLY, I THINK THE DISCUSSION ON THE BOARD MEMBER REMOVAL WAS INTERESTING AND WE GOT FADI'S PERSONAL VIEW ON THIS.BUT IT'S WORTH NOTEING THAT THIS VERY MOFEN WE'VE MADE TREMENDOUS PROGRESS WITH A LOT OF BOARD MEMBERS BEING PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN EXPRESSING THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE WAY FORWARD THAT WE HAVE FOUND, SO I THINK THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE PROGRESS WE'RE MAKING. SO I WILL JOIN FADI IN SAYING THAT WE HAVE LITTLE TIME.THIS IS REALLY THE MOMENT TO ENGAGE, DISCUSS, AND DISCUSS ON THE BASIS OF FACTS THAT ARE ACCURATE AND AVOID SPREADING ANY UNCERTAINTIES THAT MIGHT MAKE THE DECISION HARDER TO MAKE.AND THIS IS OUR COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY.THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
From:<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org(mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org)>on behalf of Rubens Kuhl Date:Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 4:52 PM Cc:Accountability Cross Community Subject:Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fadi on our work
FADI CHEHADE:THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME AND ALL OF US TO COME AND TAKE SOME TIME WITH YOU.I WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH THREE SUBSTANTIVE POINTS.
THE FIRST ONE, WHATEVER WE DO, MAKE YOUR KEY PRINCIPLE THE AVOIDANCE OF CAPTURE.IT IS CRITICAL.IT IS HOW WE HOLD TO THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL.IF WE ARE CAPTURED OR IF WE CREATE A MODEL THAT ALLOWS FOR CAPTURE BY SPECIAL INTERESTS OR SPECIAL AGENDAS, IN MY OPINION, THE ICANN WE WERE ALL HANDED WOULD HAVE BEEN RUINED.
This principle is what made ICANN of what it's today, so advocating for it is actually advocating for the continuation of its current form, if that's what the community wants.
Although the current model was successful in avoiding capture from the different parts of the community, it hasn't prevented the capture from the corporation itself and from the corporation becoming more interested in its own survival than on serving its mission. But besides this particular special interest, which is neutral in nature, I agree that it prevented capture from the stakeholder sectors, which is indeed remarkable.
TWO, WATCH CAREFULLY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES THAT REFOCUS AND ANCHOR ICANN IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS AS OPPOSED TO CONTINUING THE PROJECT OF GLOBALIZATION WE ALL STARTED.WATCH FOR THAT. IF ALL ROADS END THERE, THAT'S ONE THING.BUT IF ALL ROADS START AT THE COURTS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM.SO THIS IS THE DISTINCTION.
Agree with this precaution, but it's curious that the board proposal actually increases that dependency.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
To quote Rubens: TWO, WATCH CAREFULLY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES THAT REFOCUS AND ANCHOR ICANN IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS AS OPPOSED TO CONTINUING THE PROJECT OF GLOBALIZATION WE ALL STARTED. WATCH FOR THAT. IF ALL ROADS END THERE, THAT'S ONE THING. BUT IF ALL ROADS START AT THE COURTS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. SO THIS IS THE DISTINCTION. Agree with this precaution, but it's curious that the board proposal actually increases that dependency. * Me: Indeed it does. Perhaps more interestingly, this statement from Fadi is in direct contrast to his assurance to the US Congress that ICANN had no intention of leaving California. Irrespective of which view you take, it is quite depressing that the CEO repeatedly engages in situational assurance, telling everyone what they want to hear, instead of wjat the actual views are . Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@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 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9>
Irrespective of what Fadi said or says, he is leaving and his words and even commitments will not necessarily be honored by the next administration and so on. To the extent that we believe California law provides a reasonable basis for the ongoing legal framework of ICANN - particularly to the extent the eventual agreement relies on it - we should ensure that said framework gets "baked" into ICANN's bylaws to provide certainty going forward. Ken On Oct 17, 2015, at 6:36 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: To quote Rubens: TWO, WATCH CAREFULLY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES THAT REFOCUS AND ANCHOR ICANN IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS AS OPPOSED TO CONTINUING THE PROJECT OF GLOBALIZATION WE ALL STARTED. WATCH FOR THAT. IF ALL ROADS END THERE, THAT'S ONE THING. BUT IF ALL ROADS START AT THE COURTS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. SO THIS IS THE DISTINCTION. Agree with this precaution, but it's curious that the board proposal actually increases that dependency. ð Me: Indeed it does. Perhaps more interestingly, this statement from Fadi is in direct contrast to his assurance to the US Congress that ICANN had no intention of leaving California. Irrespective of which view you take, it is quite depressing that the CEO repeatedly engages in situational assurance, telling everyone what they want to hear, instead of wjat the actual views are … Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@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<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> _______________________________________________ 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
A significant problem with this precaution is that it creates the firm impression that we have considered processes or proposals where "all roads start at the California courts." This is manifestly false, or my memory is really slipping. And it creates an impression about the tenor of our work that is misleading and creates greater suspicions about our outcomes. Furthermore, following on Paul's final point, this is outright pandering to those members of the GAC who would like to get ICANN out of California (and the US) and those members who have raised sovereignty concerns as an issue with recourse to courts. Greg On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
To quote Rubens:
TWO, WATCH CAREFULLY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES THAT REFOCUS AND ANCHOR ICANN IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS AS OPPOSED TO CONTINUING THE PROJECT OF GLOBALIZATION WE ALL STARTED. WATCH FOR THAT.
IF ALL ROADS END THERE, THAT'S ONE THING. BUT IF ALL ROADS START AT THE COURTS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. SO THIS IS THE DISTINCTION.
Agree with this precaution, but it's curious that the board proposal actually increases that dependency.
ð Me: Indeed it does. Perhaps more interestingly, this statement from Fadi is in direct contrast to his assurance to the US Congress that ICANN had no intention of leaving California. Irrespective of which view you take, it is quite depressing that the CEO repeatedly engages in situational assurance, telling everyone what they want to hear, instead of wjat the actual views are …
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@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 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 Greg.
On Oct 18, 2015, at 12:15 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
A significant problem with this precaution is that it creates the firm impression that we have considered processes or proposals where "all roads start at the California courts."
This is manifestly false, or my memory is really slipping. And it creates an impression about the tenor of our work that is misleading and creates greater suspicions about our outcomes.
Furthermore, following on Paul's final point, this is outright pandering to those members of the GAC who would like to get ICANN out of California (and the US) and those members who have raised sovereignty concerns as an issue with recourse to courts.
Greg
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote: To quote Rubens:
TWO, WATCH CAREFULLY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES THAT REFOCUS AND ANCHOR ICANN IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS AS OPPOSED TO CONTINUING THE PROJECT OF GLOBALIZATION WE ALL STARTED. WATCH FOR THAT.
IF ALL ROADS END THERE, THAT'S ONE THING. BUT IF ALL ROADS START AT THE COURTS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. SO THIS IS THE DISTINCTION.
Agree with this precaution, but it's curious that the board proposal actually increases that dependency.
ð Me: Indeed it does. Perhaps more interestingly, this statement from Fadi is in direct contrast to his assurance to the US Congress that ICANN had no intention of leaving California. Irrespective of which view you take, it is quite depressing that the CEO repeatedly engages in situational assurance, telling everyone what they want to hear, instead of wjat the actual views are …
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
_______________________________________________ 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
I don't share the "he's wreaking our multi-stakeholder-ism" that has shown up in several excited posts to the list. Fadi's an employee with some insight, and post-mortem reports are generally useful. As I recall he incautiously said he'd fix the whois mess the first time he spoke on the record as the Corporation's CEO/President. I expect normal failings, and my expectations are, in this instance, met. (1) Is "agency capture" a mere hypothetical? I'd the impression that VGRS was generally successful in its post-98 efforts to write the rules it is obliged to follow, and their market share is ... not greatly changed. Staff did a very nice analysis of Constituency votes at the Paris meeting, capture is not a distant hypothetical. (2) If not California and its courts, then where? What could "the project of globalization we all started" mean if it is the alternative to some jurisdiction, say, the state the Corporation is domiciled in? When we started IDN (courtesy of VGRS's march stealing "testbed"), when we held meetings in just about every corner of the globe (yes, I know, globes don't actually have corners), when we ... at what point did this become leaving the legal certainty (and comfort) of Hotel California? (3) Why on earth is allowing the existing IANA Functions Contract to expire fatally fused with exiting California and fatally fused with spilling all or some of the Corporation Board and ... Getting to a form of governance that works better than what we've managed since '98 seems like a worth while goal. Trying to do that by blindly jumping over not one, but three or more high hurdles, simultaneously, is not likely to achieve that end. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
*FADI CHEHADE*: THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME AND ALL OF US TO COME AND TAKE SOME TIME WITH YOU. I WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH THREE SUBSTANTIVE POINTS.
THE FIRST ONE, WHATEVER WE DO, MAKE YOUR KEY PRINCIPLE THE AVOIDANCE OF CAPTURE. IT IS CRITICAL. IT IS HOW WE HOLD TO THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL. IF WE ARE CAPTURED OR IF WE CREATE A MODEL THAT ALLOWS FOR CAPTURE BY SPECIAL INTERESTS OR SPECIAL AGENDAS, IN MY OPINION, THE ICANN WE WERE ALL HANDED WOULD HAVE BEEN RUINED.
TWO, WATCH CAREFULLY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES THAT REFOCUS AND ANCHOR ICANN IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS AS OPPOSED TO CONTINUING THE PROJECT OF GLOBALIZATION WE ALL STARTED. WATCH FOR THAT. IF ALL ROADS END THERE, THAT'S ONE THING. BUT IF ALL ROADS START AT THE COURTS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. SO THIS IS THE DISTINCTION.
ARE THE COURTS THE FINAL POINT OF ENFORCEMENT OR ARE THEY THE FIRST POINT OF ENFORCEMENT? ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION AS YOU WATCH THE VARIOUS MODELS. AND THIS IS CRITICAL.
THE GOOD NEWS IS OUR COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDS THAT, AND I THINK MANY OF YOU GOVERNMENTS WHO HAVE TALKED TO ME HAVE VOICED YOUR CONCERN WITH A CALIFORNIA SYSTEM OR COURT SYSTEM BECOMING OUR FIRST RECOURSE.
AND THE THIRD POINT I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU BEFORE I LEAVE IS NOT TO FORGET WHY WE'RE DOING ALL OF THIS. I THINK IT WAS VERY CLEAR WHEN ALL THESE GROUPS WERE CREATED THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE A TRANSITION WORK. THE QUESTION WAS ASKED WHEN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS NO LONGER IN ITS STEWARDSHIP ROLE AS THE BACKSTOP OF THE COMMUNITY, WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO REPLACE THAT? THAT WAS THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED. AND, THEREFORE, AS THINGS GET PILED ON, THE TEST YOU SHOULD USE IS IS THIS NECESSARY TO REPLACE THE BACKSTOP ROLE OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT?
IF WE DON'T DO THAT, THEN WE WILL WATCH OUR TRANSITION SLIP AWAY, SOMETHING THAT I THINK WOULD BE A SHAME.
WE WOULD LIKE ICANN TO BECOME AN INDEPENDENT MULTISTAKEHOLDER ORGANIZATION. THIS IS THE MOMENT.
If anyone has captured the raw transcript of that can they please distribute on this list for those of us toiling in Council or otherwise unable to monitor? It would be very appreciated and instructive, especially as Council meets with Fadi tomorrow. Thanks 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of Jordan Carter [jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 10:32 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fadi on our work Those of you interested in our work will be fascinated to learn that ICANN's outgoing CEO Fadi Chehade is presenting his own personal interpretation right now at GAC: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dub54-liffeya Both on the work we have done (where the representation isn't accurate) and on the schedule of our future work (where according to him, we need to finish in 5 weeks). You may find it instructive to observe, or to read the transcripts. best Jordan -- 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
Since sending this request I have received a transcript of Fadi & Thomas' closing remarks -- but not of Fadi's initial remarks. 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of Phil Corwin [psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 11:20 AM To: Jordan Carter; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fadi on our work If anyone has captured the raw transcript of that can they please distribute on this list for those of us toiling in Council or otherwise unable to monitor? It would be very appreciated and instructive, especially as Council meets with Fadi tomorrow. Thanks 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of Jordan Carter [jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 10:32 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fadi on our work Those of you interested in our work will be fascinated to learn that ICANN's outgoing CEO Fadi Chehade is presenting his own personal interpretation right now at GAC: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dub54-liffeya Both on the work we have done (where the representation isn't accurate) and on the schedule of our future work (where according to him, we need to finish in 5 weeks). You may find it instructive to observe, or to read the transcripts. best Jordan -- 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
I watched with astonishment as the multistakeholder model was disrupted by our own CEO who presented his personal views on the transition. Much time was devoted to a sales job in favor of binding arbitration as an "appeals mechanism" relative to Board decisions. As we know there is a very significant legal question as to whether the Board can delegate decisions in this arena to binding arbitration, but this was not mentioned at all in the CEO's presentation. Further the CEO presented his personal view to the GAC that removal of directors should be taken care of by way of contract. thus, the slide deck that was displayed by the CEO and that has not yet been discussed within the CCW G Accountability since being revised was, in my personal opinion, used not as a communication tool, but rather as a MIS communication tool. Most importantly, the question before the community was presented as a need for an "appeals mechanism" and not as a need for enforceable community powers. Mathieu certainly did his best to correct the errors in Fadi's presentation while remaining polite, but I fear there will be a great deal of misunderstanding of CCWG work as a result of Fadi's presentation. I certainly hope this performance will not be repeated and look forward to Board action to restrain such miscommunication to the Community. Anne Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Tablet ------ Original message------ From: Jordan Carter Date: Sat, Oct 17, 2015 10:33 AM To: Accountability Cross Community; Cc: Subject:[CCWG-ACCT] Fadi on our work Those of you interested in our work will be fascinated to learn that ICANN's outgoing CEO Fadi Chehade is presenting his own personal interpretation right now at GAC: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dub54-liffeya Both on the work we have done (where the representation isn't accurate) and on the schedule of our future work (where according to him, we need to finish in 5 weeks). You may find it instructive to observe, or to read the transcripts. best Jordan -- 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 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
+1 Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com] Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 11:45 AM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fadi on our work I watched with astonishment as the multistakeholder model was disrupted by our own CEO who presented his personal views on the transition. Much time was devoted to a sales job in favor of binding arbitration as an "appeals mechanism" relative to Board decisions. As we know there is a very significant legal question as to whether the Board can delegate decisions in this arena to binding arbitration, but this was not mentioned at all in the CEO's presentation. Further the CEO presented his personal view to the GAC that removal of directors should be taken care of by way of contract. thus, the slide deck that was displayed by the CEO and that has not yet been discussed within the CCW G Accountability since being revised was, in my personal opinion, used not as a communication tool, but rather as a MIS communication tool. Most importantly, the question before the community was presented as a need for an "appeals mechanism" and not as a need for enforceable community powers. Mathieu certainly did his best to correct the errors in Fadi's presentation while remaining polite, but I fear there will be a great deal of misunderstanding of CCWG work as a result of Fadi's presentation. I certainly hope this performance will not be repeated and look forward to Board action to restrain such miscommunication to the Community. Anne Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Tablet ------ Original message------ From: Jordan Carter Date: Sat, Oct 17, 2015 10:33 AM To: Accountability Cross Community; Cc: Subject:[CCWG-ACCT] Fadi on our work Those of you interested in our work will be fascinated to learn that ICANN's outgoing CEO Fadi Chehade is presenting his own personal interpretation right now at GAC: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dub54-liffeya Both on the work we have done (where the representation isn't accurate) and on the schedule of our future work (where according to him, we need to finish in 5 weeks). You may find it instructive to observe, or to read the transcripts. best Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz> A better world through a better Internet _____ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
participants (17)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Greg Shatan -
James Gannon -
Jordan Carter -
Malcolm Hutty -
Megan.Richards＠ec.europa.eu -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Corwin -
Robin Gross -
Rubens Kuhl -
Salaets, Ken -
Seun Ojedeji -
Steve DelBianco -
Thomas Rickert