Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation...
I will try to address all of the points raised. I am my colleagues had no illusions about how my message would be received. We are at a point where some of us feel that there are too many rough edges to get this proposal sufficiently done to allow it to meet what we believe are the NTIA criteria, in the time we have. So we were looking at alternatives, and this was one that seems to make some sense. If we are wrong and the current proposal can be put in shape, dandy. But I think it will be a tough haul. It is not a magic bullet, and I agree that getting closure without going through another full comment period would be a challenge. Regarding what does it simplify. Takeout the membership option removes a number of critical changes. Perhaps easy for the lawyers to draft, but a challenge to get right given the onerousness of not getting all of the details perfect. It removes the budget and plan veto (which I understand some consider mandatory) and that eliminates a large chuck of work. At the same time, it preserves most of the CMSM structure that we have fleshed out (but still need to specify processes in detail as we have heard from advisors and Board members. I do not believe that CWG requirements are an issue. The IANA budget will be protected by Bylaw and that can still be done, including the community control over it. The overall message I was trying to send is that after careful analysis of the 2nd draft proposal, I and we find a lot of problems that need to be addressed and are not at all convinced that we see how it can be done by Dublin. I felt I had an obligation to raise the issue publicly, regardless of the scorn from some. As I already implied, if we are the only ones with concerns, then let's keep going forward with what we have, and hope that At-Large is crying wolf (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cry_Wolf for the cultural reference). Alan At 01/09/2015 10:26 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
The At-Large group advising on Accountability and IANA matters met today (as we have been twice weekly for the last while). It is becoming increasingly clearer that the CMSM model still has a LOT of rough edges that need to be finalized prior to putting forward our proposal as the accountability part of the IANA transition, and my recollection is that in Buenos Aires we were told in no uncertain terms that the proposal needed to be complete and fully implementable prior to being accepted by the NTIA and if necessary, Congress. I fear that the current plan will not meet that target.
So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, I am not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition.
The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole Designator (CMSD).
Following the Buenos Aires meeting, and prior to the CMSM model being introduced, many in the CCWG were willing to consider the Empowered Designator model, and this is a variant that uses the simplified CMSx structure but with the lighter-weight designator mechanism which will be significantly easier to set up. It also addresses the concerns of some with moving to a Membership model for ICANN.
I am sending this on my own, but with the knowledge that the concept had a lot of support in my community.
Alan
I am puzzled by this debate, to say the least. We have developed a proposal using the bottom-up, multistakeholder process. That process required us to wrestle with a lot of perspectives and opinions, to find solutions to address concerns, and to really come to grips with what the community agreed on. The result was the single member model. It isn¹t rocket science - it¹s a structure that is in use in many settings. The concept has been thoroughly vetted by outside counsel, and ICANN¹s outside counsel has not identified a legal problem with it. What authority do we have for turning our back on the product of the multistakeholder process to embrace a different model at the 11th hour? Yes, of course we¹ve discussed the designator model, but it has not gathered the kind of support it needs to claim community support. Rumors and anticipation of a negative response from the ³top² doesn¹t provide the kind of principled basis we would need to walk away from the output of the multistakeholder process. Yes, there is work to do - so what? We¹ve all been killing ourselves for months to be true to the multistakeholder model. Unless there is a fundamental flaw in the model developed by the community - which no one has identified - we should continue to build and perfect the community supported model. We should be proud of our work, not apologetic. We should acknowledge that it is not complete - but we¹ve known that would be the case from the beginning. Let¹s stop wringing our hands about the work to be done and just get on with it. B J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz On 9/2/15, 1:10 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I will try to address all of the points raised.
I am my colleagues had no illusions about how my message would be received. We are at a point where some of us feel that there are too many rough edges to get this proposal sufficiently done to allow it to meet what we believe are the NTIA criteria, in the time we have. So we were looking at alternatives, and this was one that seems to make some sense. If we are wrong and the current proposal can be put in shape, dandy. But I think it will be a tough haul.
It is not a magic bullet, and I agree that getting closure without going through another full comment period would be a challenge.
Regarding what does it simplify. Takeout the membership option removes a number of critical changes. Perhaps easy for the lawyers to draft, but a challenge to get right given the onerousness of not getting all of the details perfect. It removes the budget and plan veto (which I understand some consider mandatory) and that eliminates a large chuck of work. At the same time, it preserves most of the CMSM structure that we have fleshed out (but still need to specify processes in detail as we have heard from advisors and Board members.
I do not believe that CWG requirements are an issue. The IANA budget will be protected by Bylaw and that can still be done, including the community control over it.
The overall message I was trying to send is that after careful analysis of the 2nd draft proposal, I and we find a lot of problems that need to be addressed and are not at all convinced that we see how it can be done by Dublin. I felt I had an obligation to raise the issue publicly, regardless of the scorn from some.
As I already implied, if we are the only ones with concerns, then let's keep going forward with what we have, and hope that At-Large is crying wolf (see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki _Cry-5FWolf&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDm rxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kAchimQJKvlCHF6LPNxEvOmFpEfGLpHAa7WuLH3Lyj0&s=1QINYlb0 Cyx5rZXGuvsf4kTZwbvYSs1BfZUJ97LFUZo&e= for the cultural reference).
Alan
At 01/09/2015 10:26 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
The At-Large group advising on Accountability and IANA matters met today (as we have been twice weekly for the last while). It is becoming increasingly clearer that the CMSM model still has a LOT of rough edges that need to be finalized prior to putting forward our proposal as the accountability part of the IANA transition, and my recollection is that in Buenos Aires we were told in no uncertain terms that the proposal needed to be complete and fully implementable prior to being accepted by the NTIA and if necessary, Congress. I fear that the current plan will not meet that target.
So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, I am not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition.
The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole Designator (CMSD).
Following the Buenos Aires meeting, and prior to the CMSM model being introduced, many in the CCWG were willing to consider the Empowered Designator model, and this is a variant that uses the simplified CMSx structure but with the lighter-weight designator mechanism which will be significantly easier to set up. It also addresses the concerns of some with moving to a Membership model for ICANN.
I am sending this on my own, but with the knowledge that the concept had a lot of support in my community.
Alan
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kAchimQJKvlCHF6LPNxEvO mFpEfGLpHAa7WuLH3Lyj0&s=2Y-_rYGI4RDYkj-hU3DNhIh2u7pp9UsELserlE4sLvk&e=
My thoughts on this are aligned with Jordan, Jonathan, Malcolm, Kavouss, Matthew, James, Steve, Avri, James, and Becky. Or more succinctly, "+1." Greg On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
I am puzzled by this debate, to say the least.
We have developed a proposal using the bottom-up, multistakeholder process. That process required us to wrestle with a lot of perspectives and opinions, to find solutions to address concerns, and to really come to grips with what the community agreed on. The result was the single member model. It isn¹t rocket science - it¹s a structure that is in use in many settings. The concept has been thoroughly vetted by outside counsel, and ICANN¹s outside counsel has not identified a legal problem with it.
What authority do we have for turning our back on the product of the multistakeholder process to embrace a different model at the 11th hour? Yes, of course we¹ve discussed the designator model, but it has not gathered the kind of support it needs to claim community support. Rumors and anticipation of a negative response from the ³top² doesn¹t provide the kind of principled basis we would need to walk away from the output of the multistakeholder process.
Yes, there is work to do - so what? We¹ve all been killing ourselves for months to be true to the multistakeholder model. Unless there is a fundamental flaw in the model developed by the community - which no one has identified - we should continue to build and perfect the community supported model.
We should be proud of our work, not apologetic. We should acknowledge that it is not complete - but we¹ve known that would be the case from the beginning. Let¹s stop wringing our hands about the work to be done and just get on with it.
B
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
On 9/2/15, 1:10 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I will try to address all of the points raised.
I am my colleagues had no illusions about how my message would be received. We are at a point where some of us feel that there are too many rough edges to get this proposal sufficiently done to allow it to meet what we believe are the NTIA criteria, in the time we have. So we were looking at alternatives, and this was one that seems to make some sense. If we are wrong and the current proposal can be put in shape, dandy. But I think it will be a tough haul.
It is not a magic bullet, and I agree that getting closure without going through another full comment period would be a challenge.
Regarding what does it simplify. Takeout the membership option removes a number of critical changes. Perhaps easy for the lawyers to draft, but a challenge to get right given the onerousness of not getting all of the details perfect. It removes the budget and plan veto (which I understand some consider mandatory) and that eliminates a large chuck of work. At the same time, it preserves most of the CMSM structure that we have fleshed out (but still need to specify processes in detail as we have heard from advisors and Board members.
I do not believe that CWG requirements are an issue. The IANA budget will be protected by Bylaw and that can still be done, including the community control over it.
The overall message I was trying to send is that after careful analysis of the 2nd draft proposal, I and we find a lot of problems that need to be addressed and are not at all convinced that we see how it can be done by Dublin. I felt I had an obligation to raise the issue publicly, regardless of the scorn from some.
As I already implied, if we are the only ones with concerns, then let's keep going forward with what we have, and hope that At-Large is crying wolf (see
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki
_Cry-5FWolf&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDm rxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kAchimQJKvlCHF6LPNxEvOmFpEfGLpHAa7WuLH3Lyj0&s=1QINYlb0 Cyx5rZXGuvsf4kTZwbvYSs1BfZUJ97LFUZo&e= for the cultural reference).
Alan
At 01/09/2015 10:26 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
The At-Large group advising on Accountability and IANA matters met today (as we have been twice weekly for the last while). It is becoming increasingly clearer that the CMSM model still has a LOT of rough edges that need to be finalized prior to putting forward our proposal as the accountability part of the IANA transition, and my recollection is that in Buenos Aires we were told in no uncertain terms that the proposal needed to be complete and fully implementable prior to being accepted by the NTIA and if necessary, Congress. I fear that the current plan will not meet that target.
So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, I am not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition.
The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole Designator (CMSD).
Following the Buenos Aires meeting, and prior to the CMSM model being introduced, many in the CCWG were willing to consider the Empowered Designator model, and this is a variant that uses the simplified CMSx structure but with the lighter-weight designator mechanism which will be significantly easier to set up. It also addresses the concerns of some with moving to a Membership model for ICANN.
I am sending this on my own, but with the knowledge that the concept had a lot of support in my community.
Alan
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kAchimQJKvlCHF6LPNxEvO mFpEfGLpHAa7WuLH3Lyj0&s=2Y-_rYGI4RDYkj-hU3DNhIh2u7pp9UsELserlE4sLvk&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Becky, why? Because it is crap. And it will not achieve any accountability. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Sep 2, 2015, at 18:54, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
I am puzzled by this debate, to say the least.
We have developed a proposal using the bottom-up, multistakeholder process. That process required us to wrestle with a lot of perspectives and opinions, to find solutions to address concerns, and to really come to grips with what the community agreed on. The result was the single member model. It isn¹t rocket science - it¹s a structure that is in use in many settings. The concept has been thoroughly vetted by outside counsel, and ICANN¹s outside counsel has not identified a legal problem with it.
What authority do we have for turning our back on the product of the multistakeholder process to embrace a different model at the 11th hour? Yes, of course we¹ve discussed the designator model, but it has not gathered the kind of support it needs to claim community support. Rumors and anticipation of a negative response from the ³top² doesn¹t provide the kind of principled basis we would need to walk away from the output of the multistakeholder process.
Yes, there is work to do - so what? We¹ve all been killing ourselves for months to be true to the multistakeholder model. Unless there is a fundamental flaw in the model developed by the community - which no one has identified - we should continue to build and perfect the community supported model.
We should be proud of our work, not apologetic. We should acknowledge that it is not complete - but we¹ve known that would be the case from the beginning. Let¹s stop wringing our hands about the work to be done and just get on with it.
B
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
On 9/2/15, 1:10 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I will try to address all of the points raised.
I am my colleagues had no illusions about how my message would be received. We are at a point where some of us feel that there are too many rough edges to get this proposal sufficiently done to allow it to meet what we believe are the NTIA criteria, in the time we have. So we were looking at alternatives, and this was one that seems to make some sense. If we are wrong and the current proposal can be put in shape, dandy. But I think it will be a tough haul.
It is not a magic bullet, and I agree that getting closure without going through another full comment period would be a challenge.
Regarding what does it simplify. Takeout the membership option removes a number of critical changes. Perhaps easy for the lawyers to draft, but a challenge to get right given the onerousness of not getting all of the details perfect. It removes the budget and plan veto (which I understand some consider mandatory) and that eliminates a large chuck of work. At the same time, it preserves most of the CMSM structure that we have fleshed out (but still need to specify processes in detail as we have heard from advisors and Board members.
I do not believe that CWG requirements are an issue. The IANA budget will be protected by Bylaw and that can still be done, including the community control over it.
The overall message I was trying to send is that after careful analysis of the 2nd draft proposal, I and we find a lot of problems that need to be addressed and are not at all convinced that we see how it can be done by Dublin. I felt I had an obligation to raise the issue publicly, regardless of the scorn from some.
As I already implied, if we are the only ones with concerns, then let's keep going forward with what we have, and hope that At-Large is crying wolf (see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki _Cry-5FWolf&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDm rxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kAchimQJKvlCHF6LPNxEvOmFpEfGLpHAa7WuLH3Lyj0&s=1QINYlb0 Cyx5rZXGuvsf4kTZwbvYSs1BfZUJ97LFUZo&e= for the cultural reference).
Alan
At 01/09/2015 10:26 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
The At-Large group advising on Accountability and IANA matters met today (as we have been twice weekly for the last while). It is becoming increasingly clearer that the CMSM model still has a LOT of rough edges that need to be finalized prior to putting forward our proposal as the accountability part of the IANA transition, and my recollection is that in Buenos Aires we were told in no uncertain terms that the proposal needed to be complete and fully implementable prior to being accepted by the NTIA and if necessary, Congress. I fear that the current plan will not meet that target.
So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, I am not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition.
The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole Designator (CMSD).
Following the Buenos Aires meeting, and prior to the CMSM model being introduced, many in the CCWG were willing to consider the Empowered Designator model, and this is a variant that uses the simplified CMSx structure but with the lighter-weight designator mechanism which will be significantly easier to set up. It also addresses the concerns of some with moving to a Membership model for ICANN.
I am sending this on my own, but with the knowledge that the concept had a lot of support in my community.
Alan
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kAchimQJKvlCHF6LPNxEvO mFpEfGLpHAa7WuLH3Lyj0&s=2Y-_rYGI4RDYkj-hU3DNhIh2u7pp9UsELserlE4sLvk&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Why what Eberhard? And the proposed alternative that does not have multistakeholder support is better? Or because the status quo is preferable to either? J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz On 9/2/15, 5:08 PM, "Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Becky,
why?
Because it is crap. And it will not achieve any accountability.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Sep 2, 2015, at 18:54, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
I am puzzled by this debate, to say the least.
We have developed a proposal using the bottom-up, multistakeholder process. That process required us to wrestle with a lot of perspectives and opinions, to find solutions to address concerns, and to really come to grips with what the community agreed on. The result was the single member model. It isn¹t rocket science - it¹s a structure that is in use in many settings. The concept has been thoroughly vetted by outside counsel, and ICANN¹s outside counsel has not identified a legal problem with it.
What authority do we have for turning our back on the product of the multistakeholder process to embrace a different model at the 11th hour? Yes, of course we¹ve discussed the designator model, but it has not gathered the kind of support it needs to claim community support. Rumors and anticipation of a negative response from the ³top² doesn¹t provide the kind of principled basis we would need to walk away from the output of the multistakeholder process.
Yes, there is work to do - so what? We¹ve all been killing ourselves for months to be true to the multistakeholder model. Unless there is a fundamental flaw in the model developed by the community - which no one has identified - we should continue to build and perfect the community supported model.
We should be proud of our work, not apologetic. We should acknowledge that it is not complete - but we¹ve known that would be the case from the beginning. Let¹s stop wringing our hands about the work to be done and just get on with it.
B
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
On 9/2/15, 1:10 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I will try to address all of the points raised.
I am my colleagues had no illusions about how my message would be received. We are at a point where some of us feel that there are too many rough edges to get this proposal sufficiently done to allow it to meet what we believe are the NTIA criteria, in the time we have. So we were looking at alternatives, and this was one that seems to make some sense. If we are wrong and the current proposal can be put in shape, dandy. But I think it will be a tough haul.
It is not a magic bullet, and I agree that getting closure without going through another full comment period would be a challenge.
Regarding what does it simplify. Takeout the membership option removes a number of critical changes. Perhaps easy for the lawyers to draft, but a challenge to get right given the onerousness of not getting all of the details perfect. It removes the budget and plan veto (which I understand some consider mandatory) and that eliminates a large chuck of work. At the same time, it preserves most of the CMSM structure that we have fleshed out (but still need to specify processes in detail as we have heard from advisors and Board members.
I do not believe that CWG requirements are an issue. The IANA budget will be protected by Bylaw and that can still be done, including the community control over it.
The overall message I was trying to send is that after careful analysis of the 2nd draft proposal, I and we find a lot of problems that need to be addressed and are not at all convinced that we see how it can be done by Dublin. I felt I had an obligation to raise the issue publicly, regardless of the scorn from some.
As I already implied, if we are the only ones with concerns, then let's keep going forward with what we have, and hope that At-Large is crying wolf (see
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wi ki
_Cry-5FWolf&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8Tj Dm
rxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kAchimQJKvlCHF6LPNxEvOmFpEfGLpHAa7WuLH3Lyj0&s=1QINYl b0 Cyx5rZXGuvsf4kTZwbvYSs1BfZUJ97LFUZo&e= for the cultural reference).
Alan
At 01/09/2015 10:26 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
The At-Large group advising on Accountability and IANA matters met today (as we have been twice weekly for the last while). It is becoming increasingly clearer that the CMSM model still has a LOT of rough edges that need to be finalized prior to putting forward our proposal as the accountability part of the IANA transition, and my recollection is that in Buenos Aires we were told in no uncertain terms that the proposal needed to be complete and fully implementable prior to being accepted by the NTIA and if necessary, Congress. I fear that the current plan will not meet that target.
So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, I am not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition.
The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole Designator (CMSD).
Following the Buenos Aires meeting, and prior to the CMSM model being introduced, many in the CCWG were willing to consider the Empowered Designator model, and this is a variant that uses the simplified CMSx structure but with the lighter-weight designator mechanism which will be significantly easier to set up. It also addresses the concerns of some with moving to a Membership model for ICANN.
I am sending this on my own, but with the knowledge that the concept had a lot of support in my community.
Alan
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=kAchimQJKvlCHF6LPNxE vO mFpEfGLpHAa7WuLH3Lyj0&s=2Y-_rYGI4RDYkj-hU3DNhIh2u7pp9UsELserlE4sLvk&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=eocf2eu8-_Y11qHsQqL hh2QNwi931grhpQGTMrmAuqU&s=lZF_qbkHFLLdn7eqUrnL_et0dx0TCdChdGd7ZzLNfjw&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=eocf2eu8-_Y11qHsQqLhh2 QNwi931grhpQGTMrmAuqU&s=lZF_qbkHFLLdn7eqUrnL_et0dx0TCdChdGd7ZzLNfjw&e=
Alan, please don't (mis)use parts of my name in this context :-) Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 7:10 PM To: CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation... I will try to address all of the points raised. I am my colleagues had no illusions about how my message would be received. We are at a point where some of us feel that there are too many rough edges to get this proposal sufficiently done to allow it to meet what we believe are the NTIA criteria, in the time we have. So we were looking at alternatives, and this was one that seems to make some sense. If we are wrong and the current proposal can be put in shape, dandy. But I think it will be a tough haul. It is not a magic bullet, and I agree that getting closure without going through another full comment period would be a challenge. Regarding what does it simplify. Takeout the membership option removes a number of critical changes. Perhaps easy for the lawyers to draft, but a challenge to get right given the onerousness of not getting all of the details perfect. It removes the budget and plan veto (which I understand some consider mandatory) and that eliminates a large chuck of work. At the same time, it preserves most of the CMSM structure that we have fleshed out (but still need to specify processes in detail as we have heard from advisors and Board members. I do not believe that CWG requirements are an issue. The IANA budget will be protected by Bylaw and that can still be done, including the community control over it. The overall message I was trying to send is that after careful analysis of the 2nd draft proposal, I and we find a lot of problems that need to be addressed and are not at all convinced that we see how it can be done by Dublin. I felt I had an obligation to raise the issue publicly, regardless of the scorn from some. As I already implied, if we are the only ones with concerns, then let's keep going forward with what we have, and hope that At-Large is crying wolf (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cry_Wolf for the cultural reference). Alan At 01/09/2015 10:26 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
The At-Large group advising on Accountability and IANA matters met today (as we have been twice weekly for the last while). It is becoming increasingly clearer that the CMSM model still has a LOT of rough edges that need to be finalized prior to putting forward our proposal as the accountability part of the IANA transition, and my recollection is that in Buenos Aires we were told in no uncertain terms that the proposal needed to be complete and fully implementable prior to being accepted by the NTIA and if necessary, Congress. I fear that the current plan will not meet that target.
So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, I am not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition.
The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole Designator (CMSD).
Following the Buenos Aires meeting, and prior to the CMSM model being introduced, many in the CCWG were willing to consider the Empowered Designator model, and this is a variant that uses the simplified CMSx structure but with the lighter-weight designator mechanism which will be significantly easier to set up. It also addresses the concerns of some with moving to a Membership model for ICANN.
I am sending this on my own, but with the knowledge that the concept had a lot of support in my community.
Alan
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Burr, Becky -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Greg Shatan -
WUKnoben