Hi All, As someone said during the meeting yesterday (I can’t remember who it was) I think some of our issues are around our communications, as the person said “What we have here is a failure to communicate”. Our draft report is heavy dense reading and does little to educate the reader who has not been following our processes and discussions. I think that we should collect some ideas on how to improve the readability and understandability of what we have set out in the report. Taking the example of some of the work we did on the remote breakout session yesterday with Steve DelBianco (Who did a great job by the way) I noted that Steve was able to distill the conversation into a single powerpoint slide, and I thought that that was an approach that we might want to take into our next draft. To that end I wanted to see could I get some idea of how we could distill our plans for implementing each of our community powers into a single page each and made an attempt to work an illustrative example attached to this email. I think that having these one pagers at the start of our document would be very helpful and Im sure staff and the comms team can take the concept and make it a lot more attractive and pleasing to the eye than I have (I am many things, a graphic designer is not one of them!) I have also tried to weave in the recommendations from the GAO report on how we present our deliberations to NTIA in an attempt to assist them when it comes to measuring and assessing our work. I think that we should try and collect ideas from everyone on how we can make the report both substantive and easy to follow so happy to hear further ideas. Also please don’t read anything into my phrasing or word choice in the examples, purely for illustration purposes. -James
On 27/09/15 15:26, James Gannon wrote:
Hi All, As someone said during the meeting yesterday (I can’t remember who it was) I think some of our issues are around our communications, as the person said “What we have here is a failure to communicate”.
I agree with this but. Actually, I think the Board particularly Fadi and Steve have done a great job in communicating, at least yesterday. What we havein reality is a failure to engage with the consequences of what they are saying. Which is understandable, it is of such import that it will take some time to realise that you think you've been playing chess when your opponent is playing Texas Hold 'Em. Let me try my understaning: Unless there is a common proposal to NTIA, the transition will not (and MAY NEVER) happen. Unless the community give up the idea of ICANN having members (whether one or seven billion) the Board will not agree a common proposal. Where that leaves is is fairly clear.
On 27/09/2015 15:48, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Unless the community give up the idea of ICANN having members (whether one or seven billion) the Board will not agree a common proposal.
I wish I had been able to attend the face-to-face meeting. Were the Board able to be any more clear as to why they insist on the community giving up on the idea of having at least a single member? -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
Hi Malcolm, The Board was not asked that question. Cheers, Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 02:16 , Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 27/09/2015 15:48, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Unless the community give up the idea of ICANN having members (whether one or seven billion) the Board will not agree a common proposal.
I wish I had been able to attend the face-to-face meeting.
Were the Board able to be any more clear as to why they insist on the community giving up on the idea of having at least a single member?
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 27/09/2015 17:20, Chris Disspain wrote:
Hi Malcolm,
The Board was not asked that question.
I'm literally stunned.
Cheers,
Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 02:16 , Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net <mailto:malcolm@linx.net>> wrote:
On 27/09/2015 15:48, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Unless the community give up the idea of ICANN having members (whether one or seven billion) the Board will not agree a common proposal.
I wish I had been able to attend the face-to-face meeting.
Were the Board able to be any more clear as to why they insist on the community giving up on the idea of having at least a single member?
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
Dear Chris, As both ATRT exercises showed, as well as studies in between, one common and longstanding complaint is the lack of understanding by the community of the Boards positions and decsisons. They have always emphasized the need for a clearer (and independent) rationale of those positions and decision. You just confirmed the need for a better rationale again. Even if the question was not explicitly asked. Wish you a nice Sunday Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez On Sep 27, 2015 10:21 AM, "Chris Disspain" <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
Hi Malcolm,
The Board was not asked that question.
Cheers,
Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 02:16 , Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 27/09/2015 15:48, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Unless the community give up the idea of ICANN having members (whether one or seven billion) the Board will not agree a common proposal.
I wish I had been able to attend the face-to-face meeting.
Were the Board able to be any more clear as to why they insist on the community giving up on the idea of having at least a single member?
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Carlos, Respectfully, I disagree. We provided comments in quite some detail. We will happily provide more detail, answer questions etc. To do so in a vacuum would be unproductive and quite possibly counter-productive. Cheers, Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 02:30 , Carlos Raul <carlosraulg@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Chris,
As both ATRT exercises showed, as well as studies in between, one common and longstanding complaint is the lack of understanding by the community of the Boards positions and decsisons. They have always emphasized the need for a clearer (and independent) rationale of those positions and decision. You just confirmed the need for a better rationale again. Even if the question was not explicitly asked.
Wish you a nice Sunday
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
On Sep 27, 2015 10:21 AM, "Chris Disspain" <ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote: Hi Malcolm,
The Board was not asked that question.
Cheers,
Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 02:16 , Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net <mailto:malcolm@linx.net>> wrote:
On 27/09/2015 15:48, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Unless the community give up the idea of ICANN having members (whether one or seven billion) the Board will not agree a common proposal.
I wish I had been able to attend the face-to-face meeting.
Were the Board able to be any more clear as to why they insist on the community giving up on the idea of having at least a single member?
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ <http://publicaffairs.linx.net/>
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
The Board has said it will not accept the community membership proposal under any circumstances. That isn't a "comment" it's an ultimatum. This response from the Board precisely demonstrates why the community's accountability mechanism is so vital. I am glad I chose the wedding over 2 days of listening to the Board justify it's "superior" judgment. Paul -- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 27 September 2015, 00:33PM -04:00 from Chris Disspain < ceo@auda.org.au> :
Carlos,
Respectfully, I disagree. We provided comments in quite some detail. We will happily provide more detail, answer questions etc. To do so in a vacuum would be unproductive and quite possibly counter-productive.
Cheers,
Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 02:30 , Carlos Raul < carlosraulg@gmail.com > wrote: Dear Chris, As both ATRT exercises showed, as well as studies in between, one common and longstanding complaint is the lack of understanding by the community of the Boards positions and decsisons. They have always emphasized the need for a clearer (and independent) rationale of those positions and decision. You just confirmed the need for a better rationale again. Even if the question was not explicitly asked. Wish you a nice Sunday Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez On Sep 27, 2015 10:21 AM, "Chris Disspain" < ceo@auda.org.au > wrote:
Hi Malcolm,
The Board was not asked that question.
Cheers,
Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 02:16 , Malcolm Hutty < malcolm@linx.net > wrote:
On 27/09/2015 15:48, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Unless the community give up the idea of ICANN having members (whether one or seven billion) the Board will not agree a common proposal.
I wish I had been able to attend the face-to-face meeting.
Were the Board able to be any more clear as to why they insist on the community giving up on the idea of having at least a single member?
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ 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
The problem is, that the Board didn't do that. Justifying, that is. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 27 Sep 2015, at 11:48, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
The Board has said it will not accept the community membership proposal under any circumstances. That isn't a "comment" it's an ultimatum.
This response from the Board precisely demonstrates why the community's accountability mechanism is so vital.
I am glad I chose the wedding over 2 days of listening to the Board justify it's "superior" judgment.
Paul
-- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android
[...]
Just to be clear, I asked the board multiple times to share their concerns to a list we produced. That would have been one opportunity to speak to that, Chris. Thomas ======== rickert.net PS - Sent from my cell. Please excuse typos and brevity.
Am 27.09.2015 um 09:20 schrieb Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au>:
Hi Malcolm,
The Board was not asked that question.
Cheers,
Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 02:16 , Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 27/09/2015 15:48, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Unless the community give up the idea of ICANN having members (whether one or seven billion) the Board will not agree a common proposal.
I wish I had been able to attend the face-to-face meeting.
Were the Board able to be any more clear as to why they insist on the community giving up on the idea of having at least a single member?
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I disagree Thomas. You asked if the list covered the items upon which there was consensus and which there was not. I responded to that question by suggesting a change of wording to one of the items. At no time did you ask the Board to expand upon its comments or explain why it had a problem with anything in the CCWG report. Cheers, Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 05:55 , Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Just to be clear, I asked the board multiple times to share their concerns to a list we produced. That would have been one opportunity to speak to that, Chris.
Thomas
======== rickert.net <http://rickert.net/>
PS - Sent from my cell. Please excuse typos and brevity.
Am 27.09.2015 um 09:20 schrieb Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>>:
Hi Malcolm,
The Board was not asked that question.
Cheers,
Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 02:16 , Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net <mailto:malcolm@linx.net>> wrote:
On 27/09/2015 15:48, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Unless the community give up the idea of ICANN having members (whether one or seven billion) the Board will not agree a common proposal.
I wish I had been able to attend the face-to-face meeting.
Were the Board able to be any more clear as to why they insist on the community giving up on the idea of having at least a single member?
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ <http://publicaffairs.linx.net/>
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
Thomas, I misspoke below. You did refer to a list of Board concerns and I made some comments on those. But you did not ask the Board to expand on its comments or explain why it had a problem with anything in the CCWG report. Cheers, Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 06:03 , Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
I disagree Thomas. You asked if the list covered the items upon which there was consensus and which there was not. I responded to that question by suggesting a change of wording to one of the items.
At no time did you ask the Board to expand upon its comments or explain why it had a problem with anything in the CCWG report.
Cheers,
Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 05:55 , Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> wrote:
Just to be clear, I asked the board multiple times to share their concerns to a list we produced. That would have been one opportunity to speak to that, Chris.
Thomas
======== rickert.net <http://rickert.net/>
PS - Sent from my cell. Please excuse typos and brevity.
Am 27.09.2015 um 09:20 schrieb Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>>:
Hi Malcolm,
The Board was not asked that question.
Cheers,
Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 02:16 , Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net <mailto:malcolm@linx.net>> wrote:
On 27/09/2015 15:48, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Unless the community give up the idea of ICANN having members (whether one or seven billion) the Board will not agree a common proposal.
I wish I had been able to attend the face-to-face meeting.
Were the Board able to be any more clear as to why they insist on the community giving up on the idea of having at least a single member?
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ <http://publicaffairs.linx.net/>
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <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
Chris, are you seriously stating that the Board does not have to give reasons because it was unaware we would like to unserstand why, or are are saying "You gotta ask me nicely"? (Jack Nicholson as Col Jessup in "A few good men") greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s On 27 Sep 2015, 13:31 -0700, Chris Disspain<ceo@auda.org.au>, wrote:
[...]
But you did not ask theBoard to expand on its comments or explain why it had a problem with anything in the CCWG report.
Cheers,
Chris
No El, that is emphatically, categorically and precisely not what I am stating. Cheers, Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 07:06 , Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris,
are you seriously stating that the Board does not have to give reasons because it was unaware we would like to unserstand why, or are are saying "You gotta ask me nicely"? (Jack Nicholson as Col Jessup in "A few good men")
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On 27 Sep 2015, 13:31 -0700, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au>, wrote:
[...]
But you did not ask the Board to expand on its comments or explain why it had a problem with anything in the CCWG report.
Cheers,
Chris
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Than what is it, what you are stating? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 27 Sep 2015, at 14:14, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
No El, that is emphatically, categorically and precisely not what I am stating.
Cheers,
Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 07:06 , Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris,
are you seriously stating that the Board does not have to give reasons because it was unaware we would like to unserstand why, or are are saying "You gotta ask me nicely"? (Jack Nicholson as Col Jessup in "A few good men")
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On 27 Sep 2015, 13:31 -0700, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au>, wrote: [...]
But you did not ask the Board to expand on its comments or explain why it had a problem with anything in the CCWG report.
Cheers,
Chris
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Yes oracle of Delphi. What is the Board view? Nobody asked you say. We are asking now? -- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 27 September 2015, 06:09PM -04:00 from Dr Eberhard W Lisse < epilisse@gmail.com> :
Than what is it, what you are stating?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 27 Sep 2015, at 14:14, Chris Disspain < ceo@auda.org.au > wrote:
No El, that is emphatically, categorically and precisely not what I am stating.
Cheers,
Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 07:06 , Dr Eberhard W Lisse < epilisse@gmail.com > wrote: Chris,
are you seriously stating that the Board does not have to give reasons because it was unaware we would like to unserstand why, or are are saying "You gotta ask me nicely"? (Jack Nicholson as Col Jessup in "A few good men")
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On 27 Sep 2015, 13:31 -0700, Chris Disspain < ceo@auda.org.au >, wrote:
[...]
But you did not ask the Board to expand on its comments or explain why it had a problem with anything in the CCWG report.
Cheers,
Chris _______________________________________________ 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
Paul, to be precise, categoric and emphatic, we want the reasons (WHY). We have seen shared the understanding of WHAT the Board is saying. And apparently we need to find out how to ask the Board, because they seem to have issues with it. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 27 Sep 2015, at 15:15, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Yes oracle of Delphi. What is the Board view? Nobody asked you say. We are asking now?
-- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android
Sunday, 27 September 2015, 06:09PM -04:00 from Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com>:
Than what is it, what you are stating?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 27 Sep 2015, at 14:14, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
No El, that is emphatically, categorically and precisely not what I am stating.
Cheers,
Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 07:06 , Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris,
are you seriously stating that the Board does not have to give reasons because it was unaware we would like to unserstand why, or are are saying "You gotta ask me nicely"? (Jack Nicholson as Col Jessup in "A few good men")
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On 27 Sep 2015, 13:31 -0700, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au>, wrote: [...]
But you did not ask the Board to expand on its comments or explain why it had a problem with anything in the CCWG report.
Cheers,
Chris
To get back to the initial theme of this email thread: communications. Yes, the CCWG report as it currently stands is severely lacking in clear communications. I doubt that clear communications will resolve the current impasse but I have yet to see a single situation where clear communications has not helped. Here is my advice to this group, based on having been a comms professional for 20 years. 1. Keep your report. It is how this group works. Trying to bend it into clear communications for the rest of the world will be a tiring and pointless task. 2. Write a second report specifically designed for non-ICANNers to read. Think: Congressmen, your own senior VPs whose eyes rollover whenever you mention the word "ICANN". Smart people who couldn't care less about ICANN but do want to be up-to-date and informed about important developments. 3. Create a sub-group of people who actually write those kinds of reports for a living to produce the second report. 4. Here is what is missing in what the CCWG is currently proposing: * This is no clear rationale for why these changes are needed * There is no clear explanation for why these solutions were chosen * There is no clear explanation for what happens if these things aren't done 5. Here are the components of the current CCWG plans that undermine it: * It is both too vague and too detailed * Too vague: the overall scaffolding is not explained sufficiently or clearly. * Too detailed: no one but not one outside the 50 GNSO obsessives in this world want anything to do with obscure voting procedures that they will never participate in. And no one but no one wants to read pages about the process you followed except in the most enormously general terms. * It is too complex * If you want the internet community to override the Board, then it needs to be clear to people outside ICANN how that works. Just imagine a completely different organization. Imagine you are reading a report about how the car industry is allowed to overrule the international body that regulates emissions. If you are faced with a dozen pages over how a specific subgroup of the car industry, under a weighted voting system, is able to overrule a decision not withstanding a challenge from a specific group of plant union workers who would then be expected to enter an as-yet unspecified arbitration process whose final result would require a separate process, also under weighted voting, that would reconsider the results of the report and decides whether to empower a new group.... You see that and you say: this is a mess and won't ever work. But if you read: an override would require all groups from the manufacturers to the dealers to the pant worker union to agree... well then you can have some confidence in it. The shorter version of this point is: the GNSO needs to pull its head out its ass. Now to get to the nub of it: There are several very, very good reasons why there should be a "member" of ICANN. Focus on them (at least in the second, clear comms, report). Two of the biggest I would say are: * Without a member, the internet community will never be able to legally separate IANA from ICANN. That is the one, single, unquestionable power that the NTIA currently has: to cut that contract. Under the Board's MEM plan, that unquestionable right does not and will not exist. * Without a member, the Board can pass a two-thirds resolution to move its headquarters to Beijing and there is nothing the rest of the internet community can do about it. The Board's MEM approach is so convoluted that it could be tied up in pseudo-legislation for the next decade. The member approach provides a legal, unassailable right to reject that and at the same time kick the Board off for good measure. These are clear scenarios that would currently never happen because the NTIA is in charge. When the NTIA is gone, they have to become impossible. And the member model is the clear path, written into existing US corporate law i.e. not some special hodge-podge of ideas dreamed up in the penthouse suite of an LA hotel. Tell that to Congress and then let ICANN Corporate explain why their approach is better. * Last suggestion: stop calling it the "single member model". Call it something that makes immediate sense to everyone and has a positive feel to it. That way people can understand it. And you give the Board a way to save face. Hope this is helpful. Kieren On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Paul,
to be precise, categoric and emphatic, we want the reasons (WHY).
We have seen shared the understanding of WHAT the Board is saying.
And apparently we need to find out how to ask the Board, because they seem to have issues with it.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 27 Sep 2015, at 15:15, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Yes oracle of Delphi. What is the Board view? Nobody asked you say. We are asking now?
-- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 27 September 2015, 06:09PM -04:00 from Dr Eberhard W Lisse < epilisse@gmail.com>:
Than what is it, what you are stating?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 27 Sep 2015, at 14:14, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aceo@auda.org.au>> wrote:
No El, that is emphatically, categorically and precisely not what I am stating.
Cheers,
Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 07:06 , Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aepilisse@gmail.com>> wrote:
Chris,
are you seriously stating that the Board does not have to give reasons because it was unaware we would like to unserstand why, or are are saying "You gotta ask me nicely"? (Jack Nicholson as Col Jessup in "A few good men")
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On 27 Sep 2015, 13:31 -0700, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aceo@auda.org.au>>, wrote:
[...]
But you did not ask the Board to expand on its comments or explain why it had a problem with anything in the CCWG report.
Cheers,
Chris
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
This is solid advice. Everyone should read this and take it onboard. Thank you for this one Kieren. _james From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kieren McCarthy Date: Monday 28 September 2015 20:06 To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse Cc: Lisse Eberhard, CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas To get back to the initial theme of this email thread: communications. Yes, the CCWG report as it currently stands is severely lacking in clear communications. I doubt that clear communications will resolve the current impasse but I have yet to see a single situation where clear communications has not helped. Here is my advice to this group, based on having been a comms professional for 20 years. 1. Keep your report. It is how this group works. Trying to bend it into clear communications for the rest of the world will be a tiring and pointless task. 2. Write a second report specifically designed for non-ICANNers to read. Think: Congressmen, your own senior VPs whose eyes rollover whenever you mention the word "ICANN". Smart people who couldn't care less about ICANN but do want to be up-to-date and informed about important developments. 3. Create a sub-group of people who actually write those kinds of reports for a living to produce the second report. 4. Here is what is missing in what the CCWG is currently proposing: * This is no clear rationale for why these changes are needed * There is no clear explanation for why these solutions were chosen * There is no clear explanation for what happens if these things aren't done 5. Here are the components of the current CCWG plans that undermine it: * It is both too vague and too detailed * Too vague: the overall scaffolding is not explained sufficiently or clearly. * Too detailed: no one but not one outside the 50 GNSO obsessives in this world want anything to do with obscure voting procedures that they will never participate in. And no one but no one wants to read pages about the process you followed except in the most enormously general terms. * It is too complex * If you want the internet community to override the Board, then it needs to be clear to people outside ICANN how that works. Just imagine a completely different organization. Imagine you are reading a report about how the car industry is allowed to overrule the international body that regulates emissions. If you are faced with a dozen pages over how a specific subgroup of the car industry, under a weighted voting system, is able to overrule a decision not withstanding a challenge from a specific group of plant union workers who would then be expected to enter an as-yet unspecified arbitration process whose final result would require a separate process, also under weighted voting, that would reconsider the results of the report and decides whether to empower a new group.... You see that and you say: this is a mess and won't ever work. But if you read: an override would require all groups from the manufacturers to the dealers to the pant worker union to agree... well then you can have some confidence in it. The shorter version of this point is: the GNSO needs to pull its head out its ass. Now to get to the nub of it: There are several very, very good reasons why there should be a "member" of ICANN. Focus on them (at least in the second, clear comms, report). Two of the biggest I would say are: * Without a member, the internet community will never be able to legally separate IANA from ICANN. That is the one, single, unquestionable power that the NTIA currently has: to cut that contract. Under the Board's MEM plan, that unquestionable right does not and will not exist. * Without a member, the Board can pass a two-thirds resolution to move its headquarters to Beijing and there is nothing the rest of the internet community can do about it. The Board's MEM approach is so convoluted that it could be tied up in pseudo-legislation for the next decade. The member approach provides a legal, unassailable right to reject that and at the same time kick the Board off for good measure. These are clear scenarios that would currently never happen because the NTIA is in charge. When the NTIA is gone, they have to become impossible. And the member model is the clear path, written into existing US corporate law i.e. not some special hodge-podge of ideas dreamed up in the penthouse suite of an LA hotel. Tell that to Congress and then let ICANN Corporate explain why their approach is better. * Last suggestion: stop calling it the "single member model". Call it something that makes immediate sense to everyone and has a positive feel to it. That way people can understand it. And you give the Board a way to save face. Hope this is helpful. Kieren On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote: Paul, to be precise, categoric and emphatic, we want the reasons (WHY). We have seen shared the understanding of WHAT the Board is saying. And apparently we need to find out how to ask the Board, because they seem to have issues with it. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On 27 Sep 2015, at 15:15, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Yes oracle of Delphi. What is the Board view? Nobody asked you say. We are asking now? -- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 27 September 2015, 06:09PM -04:00 from Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>>: Than what is it, what you are stating? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On 27 Sep 2015, at 14:14, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aceo@auda.org.au>> wrote: No El, that is emphatically, categorically and precisely not what I am stating. Cheers, Chris On 28 Sep 2015, at 07:06 , Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aepilisse@gmail.com>> wrote: Chris, are you seriously stating that the Board does not have to give reasons because it was unaware we would like to unserstand why, or are are saying "You gotta ask me nicely"? (Jack Nicholson as Col Jessup in "A few good men") greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s On 27 Sep 2015, 13:31 -0700, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aceo@auda.org.au>>, wrote: [...] But you did not ask the Board to expand on its comments or explain why it had a problem with anything in the CCWG report. Cheers, Chris _______________________________________________ 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
+1 Totally agree. As a lurker who has been trying to read everything, I find the language pretty opaque. If ICANN addicts don't get it, outsiders have no hope. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-09-28 15:18, James Gannon wrote:
This is solid advice. Everyone should read this and take it onboard. Thank you for this one Kieren.
_james
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kieren McCarthy Date: Monday 28 September 2015 20:06 To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse Cc: Lisse Eberhard, CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas
To get back to the initial theme of this email thread: communications.
Yes, the CCWG report as it currently stands is severely lacking in clear communications.
I doubt that clear communications will resolve the current impasse but I have yet to see a single situation where clear communications has not helped.
Here is my advice to this group, based on having been a comms professional for 20 years.
1. Keep your report. It is how this group works. Trying to bend it into clear communications for the rest of the world will be a tiring and pointless task.
2. Write a second report specifically designed for non-ICANNers to read. Think: Congressmen, your own senior VPs whose eyes rollover whenever you mention the word "ICANN". Smart people who couldn't care less about ICANN but do want to be up-to-date and informed about important developments.
3. Create a sub-group of people who actually write those kinds of reports for a living to produce the second report.
4. Here is what is missing in what the CCWG is currently proposing:
* This is no clear rationale for why these changes are needed * There is no clear explanation for why these solutions were chosen * There is no clear explanation for what happens if these things aren't done
5. Here are the components of the current CCWG plans that undermine it:
* It is both too vague and too detailed * Too vague: the overall scaffolding is not explained sufficiently or clearly. * Too detailed: no one but not one outside the 50 GNSO obsessives in this world want anything to do with obscure voting procedures that they will never participate in. And no one but no one wants to read pages about the process you followed except in the most enormously general terms.
* It is too complex * If you want the internet community to override the Board, then it needs to be clear to people outside ICANN how that works. Just imagine a completely different organization.
Imagine you are reading a report about how the car industry is allowed to overrule the international body that regulates emissions. If you are faced with a dozen pages over how a specific subgroup of the car industry, under a weighted voting system, is able to overrule a decision not withstanding a challenge from a specific group of plant union workers who would then be expected to enter an as-yet unspecified arbitration process whose final result would require a separate process, also under weighted voting, that would reconsider the results of the report and decides whether to empower a new group....
You see that and you say: this is a mess and won't ever work.
But if you read: an override would require all groups from the manufacturers to the dealers to the pant worker union to agree... well then you can have some confidence in it.
The shorter version of this point is: the GNSO needs to pull its head out its ass.
Now to get to the nub of it:
There are several very, very good reasons why there should be a "member" of ICANN. Focus on them (at least in the second, clear comms, report).
Two of the biggest I would say are:
* Without a member, the internet community will never be able to legally separate IANA from ICANN. That is the one, single, unquestionable power that the NTIA currently has: to cut that contract. Under the Board's MEM plan, that unquestionable right does not and will not exist.
* Without a member, the Board can pass a two-thirds resolution to move its headquarters to Beijing and there is nothing the rest of the internet community can do about it. The Board's MEM approach is so convoluted that it could be tied up in pseudo-legislation for the next decade. The member approach provides a legal, unassailable right to reject that and at the same time kick the Board off for good measure.
These are clear scenarios that would currently never happen because the NTIA is in charge. When the NTIA is gone, they have to become impossible. And the member model is the clear path, written into existing US corporate law i.e. not some special hodge-podge of ideas dreamed up in the penthouse suite of an LA hotel.
Tell that to Congress and then let ICANN Corporate explain why their approach is better.
* Last suggestion: stop calling it the "single member model". Call it something that makes immediate sense to everyone and has a positive feel to it. That way people can understand it. And you give the Board a way to save face.
Hope this is helpful.
Kieren
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:
Paul,
to be precise, categoric and emphatic, we want the reasons (WHY).
We have seen shared the understanding of WHAT the Board is saying.
And apparently we need to find out how to ask the Board, because they seem to have issues with it.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 27 Sep 2015, at 15:15, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
Yes oracle of Delphi. What is the Board view? Nobody asked you say. We are asking now?
-- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android
Sunday, 27 September 2015, 06:09PM -04:00 from Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>>:
Than what is it, what you are stating?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 27 Sep 2015, at 14:14, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aceo@auda.org.au>> wrote:
No El, that is emphatically, categorically and precisely not what I am stating.
Cheers,
Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 07:06 , Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aepilisse@gmail.com>> wrote:
Chris,
are you seriously stating that the Board does not have to give reasons because it was unaware we would like to unserstand why, or are are saying "You gotta ask me nicely"? (Jack Nicholson as Col Jessup in "A few good men")
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On 27 Sep 2015, 13:31 -0700, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aceo@auda.org.au>>, wrote:
[...]
But you did not ask the Board to expand on its comments or explain why it had a problem with anything in the CCWG report.
Cheers,
Chris
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I agree, thanks Kieren Cheers, Roelof From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Date: maandag 28 september 2015 21:18 To: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com<mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com>>, Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas This is solid advice. Everyone should read this and take it onboard. Thank you for this one Kieren. _james From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kieren McCarthy Date: Monday 28 September 2015 20:06 To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse Cc: Lisse Eberhard, CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas To get back to the initial theme of this email thread: communications. Yes, the CCWG report as it currently stands is severely lacking in clear communications. I doubt that clear communications will resolve the current impasse but I have yet to see a single situation where clear communications has not helped. Here is my advice to this group, based on having been a comms professional for 20 years. 1. Keep your report. It is how this group works. Trying to bend it into clear communications for the rest of the world will be a tiring and pointless task. 2. Write a second report specifically designed for non-ICANNers to read. Think: Congressmen, your own senior VPs whose eyes rollover whenever you mention the word "ICANN". Smart people who couldn't care less about ICANN but do want to be up-to-date and informed about important developments. 3. Create a sub-group of people who actually write those kinds of reports for a living to produce the second report. 4. Here is what is missing in what the CCWG is currently proposing: * This is no clear rationale for why these changes are needed * There is no clear explanation for why these solutions were chosen * There is no clear explanation for what happens if these things aren't done 5. Here are the components of the current CCWG plans that undermine it: * It is both too vague and too detailed * Too vague: the overall scaffolding is not explained sufficiently or clearly. * Too detailed: no one but not one outside the 50 GNSO obsessives in this world want anything to do with obscure voting procedures that they will never participate in. And no one but no one wants to read pages about the process you followed except in the most enormously general terms. * It is too complex * If you want the internet community to override the Board, then it needs to be clear to people outside ICANN how that works. Just imagine a completely different organization. Imagine you are reading a report about how the car industry is allowed to overrule the international body that regulates emissions. If you are faced with a dozen pages over how a specific subgroup of the car industry, under a weighted voting system, is able to overrule a decision not withstanding a challenge from a specific group of plant union workers who would then be expected to enter an as-yet unspecified arbitration process whose final result would require a separate process, also under weighted voting, that would reconsider the results of the report and decides whether to empower a new group.... You see that and you say: this is a mess and won't ever work. But if you read: an override would require all groups from the manufacturers to the dealers to the pant worker union to agree... well then you can have some confidence in it. The shorter version of this point is: the GNSO needs to pull its head out its ass. Now to get to the nub of it: There are several very, very good reasons why there should be a "member" of ICANN. Focus on them (at least in the second, clear comms, report). Two of the biggest I would say are: * Without a member, the internet community will never be able to legally separate IANA from ICANN. That is the one, single, unquestionable power that the NTIA currently has: to cut that contract. Under the Board's MEM plan, that unquestionable right does not and will not exist. * Without a member, the Board can pass a two-thirds resolution to move its headquarters to Beijing and there is nothing the rest of the internet community can do about it. The Board's MEM approach is so convoluted that it could be tied up in pseudo-legislation for the next decade. The member approach provides a legal, unassailable right to reject that and at the same time kick the Board off for good measure. These are clear scenarios that would currently never happen because the NTIA is in charge. When the NTIA is gone, they have to become impossible. And the member model is the clear path, written into existing US corporate law i.e. not some special hodge-podge of ideas dreamed up in the penthouse suite of an LA hotel. Tell that to Congress and then let ICANN Corporate explain why their approach is better. * Last suggestion: stop calling it the "single member model". Call it something that makes immediate sense to everyone and has a positive feel to it. That way people can understand it. And you give the Board a way to save face. Hope this is helpful. Kieren On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote: Paul, to be precise, categoric and emphatic, we want the reasons (WHY). We have seen shared the understanding of WHAT the Board is saying. And apparently we need to find out how to ask the Board, because they seem to have issues with it. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On 27 Sep 2015, at 15:15, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Yes oracle of Delphi. What is the Board view? Nobody asked you say. We are asking now? -- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 27 September 2015, 06:09PM -04:00 from Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>>: Than what is it, what you are stating? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On 27 Sep 2015, at 14:14, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aceo@auda.org.au>> wrote: No El, that is emphatically, categorically and precisely not what I am stating. Cheers, Chris On 28 Sep 2015, at 07:06 , Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aepilisse@gmail.com>> wrote: Chris, are you seriously stating that the Board does not have to give reasons because it was unaware we would like to unserstand why, or are are saying "You gotta ask me nicely"? (Jack Nicholson as Col Jessup in "A few good men") greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s On 27 Sep 2015, 13:31 -0700, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aceo@auda.org.au>>, wrote: [...] But you did not ask the Board to expand on its comments or explain why it had a problem with anything in the CCWG report. Cheers, Chris _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Kieren. Very helpful. Communicated like a fellow Englishman. We all need to adopt a KISS ( Keep it simple stupid ) attitude. Is it implementable and so will last. What is the new revised critical path - not whether we can rush this through before Fadi leaves. And yes think mid western Congressman/ woman - who isn't online. If they get the big picture then everybody else will. I seriously question whether ICANN is ready for this and who (person/ persons) will replace Fadi and are capable of managing the rollout and huge changes ( as well as getting the gTLD mess back on track). Just my sixpence worth. Thanks, Phil From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Roelof Meijer Sent: 29 September 2015 15:28 To: James Gannon; Kieren McCarthy; CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas I agree, thanks Kieren Cheers, Roelof From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Date: maandag 28 september 2015 21:18 To: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com>, Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas This is solid advice. Everyone should read this and take it onboard. Thank you for this one Kieren. _james From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kieren McCarthy Date: Monday 28 September 2015 20:06 To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse Cc: Lisse Eberhard, CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas To get back to the initial theme of this email thread: communications. Yes, the CCWG report as it currently stands is severely lacking in clear communications. I doubt that clear communications will resolve the current impasse but I have yet to see a single situation where clear communications has not helped. Here is my advice to this group, based on having been a comms professional for 20 years. 1. Keep your report. It is how this group works. Trying to bend it into clear communications for the rest of the world will be a tiring and pointless task. 2. Write a second report specifically designed for non-ICANNers to read. Think: Congressmen, your own senior VPs whose eyes rollover whenever you mention the word "ICANN". Smart people who couldn't care less about ICANN but do want to be up-to-date and informed about important developments. 3. Create a sub-group of people who actually write those kinds of reports for a living to produce the second report. 4. Here is what is missing in what the CCWG is currently proposing: * This is no clear rationale for why these changes are needed * There is no clear explanation for why these solutions were chosen * There is no clear explanation for what happens if these things aren't done 5. Here are the components of the current CCWG plans that undermine it: * It is both too vague and too detailed * Too vague: the overall scaffolding is not explained sufficiently or clearly. * Too detailed: no one but not one outside the 50 GNSO obsessives in this world want anything to do with obscure voting procedures that they will never participate in. And no one but no one wants to read pages about the process you followed except in the most enormously general terms. * It is too complex * If you want the internet community to override the Board, then it needs to be clear to people outside ICANN how that works. Just imagine a completely different organization. Imagine you are reading a report about how the car industry is allowed to overrule the international body that regulates emissions. If you are faced with a dozen pages over how a specific subgroup of the car industry, under a weighted voting system, is able to overrule a decision not withstanding a challenge from a specific group of plant union workers who would then be expected to enter an as-yet unspecified arbitration process whose final result would require a separate process, also under weighted voting, that would reconsider the results of the report and decides whether to empower a new group.... You see that and you say: this is a mess and won't ever work. But if you read: an override would require all groups from the manufacturers to the dealers to the pant worker union to agree... well then you can have some confidence in it. The shorter version of this point is: the GNSO needs to pull its head out its ass. Now to get to the nub of it: There are several very, very good reasons why there should be a "member" of ICANN. Focus on them (at least in the second, clear comms, report). Two of the biggest I would say are: * Without a member, the internet community will never be able to legally separate IANA from ICANN. That is the one, single, unquestionable power that the NTIA currently has: to cut that contract. Under the Board's MEM plan, that unquestionable right does not and will not exist. * Without a member, the Board can pass a two-thirds resolution to move its headquarters to Beijing and there is nothing the rest of the internet community can do about it. The Board's MEM approach is so convoluted that it could be tied up in pseudo-legislation for the next decade. The member approach provides a legal, unassailable right to reject that and at the same time kick the Board off for good measure. These are clear scenarios that would currently never happen because the NTIA is in charge. When the NTIA is gone, they have to become impossible. And the member model is the clear path, written into existing US corporate law i.e. not some special hodge-podge of ideas dreamed up in the penthouse suite of an LA hotel. Tell that to Congress and then let ICANN Corporate explain why their approach is better. * Last suggestion: stop calling it the "single member model". Call it something that makes immediate sense to everyone and has a positive feel to it. That way people can understand it. And you give the Board a way to save face. Hope this is helpful. Kieren On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote: Paul, to be precise, categoric and emphatic, we want the reasons (WHY). We have seen shared the understanding of WHAT the Board is saying. And apparently we need to find out how to ask the Board, because they seem to have issues with it. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On 27 Sep 2015, at 15:15, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote: Yes oracle of Delphi. What is the Board view? Nobody asked you say. We are asking now? -- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 27 September 2015, 06:09PM -04:00 from Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com>: Than what is it, what you are stating? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On 27 Sep 2015, at 14:14, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aceo@auda.org.au> > wrote: No El, that is emphatically, categorically and precisely not what I am stating. Cheers, Chris On 28 Sep 2015, at 07:06 , Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aepilisse@gmail.com> > wrote: Chris, are you seriously stating that the Board does not have to give reasons because it was unaware we would like to unserstand why, or are are saying "You gotta ask me nicely"? (Jack Nicholson as Col Jessup in "A few good men") greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s On 27 Sep 2015, 13:31 -0700, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aceo@auda.org.au> >, wrote: [...] But you did not ask the Board to expand on its comments or explain why it had a problem with anything in the CCWG report. Cheers, Chris _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 28-Sep-15 15:06, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
* Last suggestion: stop calling it the "single member model". Call it something that makes immediate sense to everyone and has a positive feel to it. That way people can understand it. And you give the Board a way to save face.
good idea. something like? unified community member model --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Unified Community Membership Model Or UCMM. But we can call it it a meerkat for all I'm concerned, the Board are still against it and therefore it won't happen. I predicted this some months ago, on the basis of what happened to the IFWP. I can't say it gives me no pleasure to be proved right. I'm only human, and I feel a bit smug, to be honest. But I so wish I had been wrong. On 28/09/15 20:23, Avri Doria wrote:
On 28-Sep-15 15:06, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
* Last suggestion: stop calling it the "single member model". Call it something that makes immediate sense to everyone and has a positive feel to it. That way people can understand it. And you give the Board a way to save face.
good idea.
something like?
unified community member model
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On the contrary Nigel, the Board is against it, but if the community insists it will happen! :-) Yes, I know ... and someday the horse will sing ... but I insist on optimism. I will not eat crumbs P Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 3:31 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas Unified Community Membership Model Or UCMM. But we can call it it a meerkat for all I'm concerned, the Board are still against it and therefore it won't happen. I predicted this some months ago, on the basis of what happened to the IFWP. I can't say it gives me no pleasure to be proved right. I'm only human, and I feel a bit smug, to be honest. But I so wish I had been wrong. On 28/09/15 20:23, Avri Doria wrote:
On 28-Sep-15 15:06, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
* Last suggestion: stop calling it the "single member model". Call it something that makes immediate sense to everyone and has a positive feel to it. That way people can understand it. And you give the Board a way to save face.
good idea.
something like?
unified community member model
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I agree with much that Kieren has said. I do take issue with the characterization of the GNSO. The problem is we have 4 heads (or arguably 7) representing utterly different stakeholder groups. Recall that SO stands for "Support Organization" not "Stakeholder Organization." The groupings of stakeholders are stuck under a single GNSO umbrella solely to tussle with one another over gTLD policy. For purposes beyond that, the GNSO grouping is essentially meaningless. Trying to stick 4 heads up one collective bunghole does nobody any favors. Greg On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Unified Community Membership Model
Or UCMM.
But we can call it it a meerkat for all I'm concerned, the Board are still against it and therefore it won't happen.
I predicted this some months ago, on the basis of what happened to the IFWP. I can't say it gives me no pleasure to be proved right. I'm only human, and I feel a bit smug, to be honest. But I so wish I had been wrong.
On 28/09/15 20:23, Avri Doria wrote:
On 28-Sep-15 15:06, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
* Last suggestion: stop calling it the "single member model". Call it something that makes immediate sense to everyone and has a positive feel to it. That way people can understand it. And you give the Board a way to save face.
good idea.
something like?
unified community member model
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 28 Sep 2015, at 20:30, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
the Board are still against it and therefore it won't happen.
I don't accept such defeatism. We need to continue to work to improve our proposal to make it the best it can be: taking into account Board input, but not merely deferring to their preference. And then we must report. As Kieren puts it "Tell that to Congress and then let ICANN Corporate explain why their approach is better." If we do that we will have discharged our duty, to faithfully propose the means by which oversight of ICANN can be transitioned to the global multistakeholder community. If higher powers then decide that they don't actually like the idea of such transition when they see what it truly looks like, well that's on them. My guess is that they would be much more loath to reject the considered community view than we now suppose. If, on the other hand, we submit a proposal we know to be flawed out of an untested fear that others demand such flaws, then posterity will condemn us, not them.
Amen Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm@linx.net] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 5:40 PM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas
On 28 Sep 2015, at 20:30, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
the Board are still against it and therefore it won't happen.
I don't accept such defeatism. We need to continue to work to improve our proposal to make it the best it can be: taking into account Board input, but not merely deferring to their preference. And then we must report. As Kieren puts it "Tell that to Congress and then let ICANN Corporate explain why their approach is better." If we do that we will have discharged our duty, to faithfully propose the means by which oversight of ICANN can be transitioned to the global multistakeholder community. If higher powers then decide that they don't actually like the idea of such transition when they see what it truly looks like, well that's on them. My guess is that they would be much more loath to reject the considered community view than we now suppose. If, on the other hand, we submit a proposal we know to be flawed out of an untested fear that others demand such flaws, then posterity will condemn us, not them. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
It seems to me that the process agreed to, gave deference to the Community. The board should only reject a recommendation in the proposal by a finding of "it is not in the global public interest", and it had to do so with a 2/3rd majority. I'm guessing it was biased that way for a reason. It may be the case that 11 or more board members will remain staunch in their determination that turning ICANN into a membership organization is not in the global public interest, and that would be fine. But we've had a fair amount of consensus on changing to a membership through two consultations, so before that will is overturned I think it behooves us to continue the frank and open discussion about the second proposal, without any preconditions of elements off the table. -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 5:51 PM To: 'Malcolm Hutty'; 'Nigel Roberts' Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas Amen Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm@linx.net] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 5:40 PM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas
On 28 Sep 2015, at 20:30, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
the Board are still against it and therefore it won't happen.
I don't accept such defeatism. We need to continue to work to improve our proposal to make it the best it can be: taking into account Board input, but not merely deferring to their preference. And then we must report. As Kieren puts it "Tell that to Congress and then let ICANN Corporate explain why their approach is better." If we do that we will have discharged our duty, to faithfully propose the means by which oversight of ICANN can be transitioned to the global multistakeholder community. If higher powers then decide that they don't actually like the idea of such transition when they see what it truly looks like, well that's on them. My guess is that they would be much more loath to reject the considered community view than we now suppose. If, on the other hand, we submit a proposal we know to be flawed out of an untested fear that others demand such flaws, then posterity will condemn us, not them. _______________________________________________ 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
Great points,Kieren, especially No. 5. Thank you. On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier@intel.com
wrote:
It seems to me that the process agreed to, gave deference to the Community. The board should only reject a recommendation in the proposal by a finding of "it is not in the global public interest", and it had to do so with a 2/3rd majority. I'm guessing it was biased that way for a reason.
It may be the case that 11 or more board members will remain staunch in their determination that turning ICANN into a membership organization is not in the global public interest, and that would be fine.
But we've had a fair amount of consensus on changing to a membership through two consultations, so before that will is overturned I think it behooves us to continue the frank and open discussion about the second proposal, without any preconditions of elements off the table.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 5:51 PM To: 'Malcolm Hutty'; 'Nigel Roberts' Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas
Amen
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm@linx.net] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 5:40 PM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas
On 28 Sep 2015, at 20:30, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
the Board are still against it and therefore it won't happen.
I don't accept such defeatism. We need to continue to work to improve our proposal to make it the best it can be: taking into account Board input, but not merely deferring to their preference. And then we must report. As Kieren puts it
"Tell that to Congress and then let ICANN Corporate explain why their approach is better."
If we do that we will have discharged our duty, to faithfully propose the means by which oversight of ICANN can be transitioned to the global multistakeholder community. If higher powers then decide that they don't actually like the idea of such transition when they see what it truly looks like, well that's on them. My guess is that they would be much more loath to reject the considered community view than we now suppose.
If, on the other hand, we submit a proposal we know to be flawed out of an untested fear that others demand such flaws, then posterity will condemn us, not them. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- - @arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org> National Law University, New Delhi Ph: +91-9871943272
+ 1 Malcolm On 28/09/2015 17:39, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
On 28 Sep 2015, at 20:30, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
the Board are still against it and therefore it won't happen. I don't accept such defeatism. We need to continue to work to improve our proposal to make it the best it can be: taking into account Board input, but not merely deferring to their preference. And then we must report. As Kieren puts it
"Tell that to Congress and then let ICANN Corporate explain why their approach is better."
If we do that we will have discharged our duty, to faithfully propose the means by which oversight of ICANN can be transitioned to the global multistakeholder community. If higher powers then decide that they don't actually like the idea of such transition when they see what it truly looks like, well that's on them. My guess is that they would be much more loath to reject the considered community view than we now suppose.
If, on the other hand, we submit a proposal we know to be flawed out of an untested fear that others demand such flaws, then posterity will condemn us, not them. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On 28 Sep 2015, at 20:06, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
* Last suggestion: stop calling it the "single member model". Call it something that makes immediate sense to everyone and has a positive feel to it. That way people can understand it. And you give the Board a way to save face.
Kieran, Thank you for your thoughtful professional advice. We would do well to follow it. On the except I quote above, though, do you have a suggested alternative? The advantage of the term "Single Member Model" is that it is clearly states i) it is a membership model and ii) there is only one member. That has a certain frank simplicity compared to, say, the "super re-empowered community inclusivity model"; anything else that comes across as a collection of buzzwords is unlikely to be more convincing. Malcolm.
Super Community Unification Model? On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 28 Sep 2015, at 20:06, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
* Last suggestion: stop calling it the "single member model". Call it something that makes immediate sense to everyone and has a positive feel to it. That way people can understand it. And you give the Board a way to save face.
Kieran,
Thank you for your thoughtful professional advice. We would do well to follow it. On the except I quote above, though, do you have a suggested alternative?
The advantage of the term "Single Member Model" is that it is clearly states i) it is a membership model and ii) there is only one member. That has a certain frank simplicity compared to, say, the "super re-empowered community inclusivity model"; anything else that comes across as a collection of buzzwords is unlikely to be more convincing.
Malcolm. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Cindy Crawford Super Model The Word's Next Top Model ICANN's Next Top Model -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 5:28 PM To: Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas
On 28 Sep 2015, at 20:06, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
* Last suggestion: stop calling it the "single member model". Call it something that makes immediate sense to everyone and has a positive feel to it. That way people can understand it. And you give the Board a way to save face.
Kieran, Thank you for your thoughtful professional advice. We would do well to follow it. On the except I quote above, though, do you have a suggested alternative? The advantage of the term "Single Member Model" is that it is clearly states i) it is a membership model and ii) there is only one member. That has a certain frank simplicity compared to, say, the "super re-empowered community inclusivity model"; anything else that comes across as a collection of buzzwords is unlikely to be more convincing. Malcolm. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Kieren Your thoughts sounds a reasonable strategy at this point in the proceedings. "And the member model is the clear path, written into existing US corporate law i.e. not some special hodge-podge of ideas dreamed up in the penthouse suite of an LA hotel." Better than breadcrumbs!! RD On Sep 28, 2015 3:07 PM, "Kieren McCarthy" <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
To get back to the initial theme of this email thread: communications.
Yes, the CCWG report as it currently stands is severely lacking in clear communications.
I doubt that clear communications will resolve the current impasse but I have yet to see a single situation where clear communications has not helped.
Here is my advice to this group, based on having been a comms professional for 20 years.
1. Keep your report. It is how this group works. Trying to bend it into clear communications for the rest of the world will be a tiring and pointless task.
2. Write a second report specifically designed for non-ICANNers to read. Think: Congressmen, your own senior VPs whose eyes rollover whenever you mention the word "ICANN". Smart people who couldn't care less about ICANN but do want to be up-to-date and informed about important developments.
3. Create a sub-group of people who actually write those kinds of reports for a living to produce the second report.
4. Here is what is missing in what the CCWG is currently proposing:
* This is no clear rationale for why these changes are needed * There is no clear explanation for why these solutions were chosen * There is no clear explanation for what happens if these things aren't done
5. Here are the components of the current CCWG plans that undermine it:
* It is both too vague and too detailed * Too vague: the overall scaffolding is not explained sufficiently or clearly. * Too detailed: no one but not one outside the 50 GNSO obsessives in this world want anything to do with obscure voting procedures that they will never participate in. And no one but no one wants to read pages about the process you followed except in the most enormously general terms.
* It is too complex * If you want the internet community to override the Board, then it needs to be clear to people outside ICANN how that works. Just imagine a completely different organization.
Imagine you are reading a report about how the car industry is allowed to overrule the international body that regulates emissions. If you are faced with a dozen pages over how a specific subgroup of the car industry, under a weighted voting system, is able to overrule a decision not withstanding a challenge from a specific group of plant union workers who would then be expected to enter an as-yet unspecified arbitration process whose final result would require a separate process, also under weighted voting, that would reconsider the results of the report and decides whether to empower a new group....
You see that and you say: this is a mess and won't ever work.
But if you read: an override would require all groups from the manufacturers to the dealers to the pant worker union to agree... well then you can have some confidence in it.
The shorter version of this point is: the GNSO needs to pull its head out its ass.
Now to get to the nub of it:
There are several very, very good reasons why there should be a "member" of ICANN. Focus on them (at least in the second, clear comms, report).
Two of the biggest I would say are:
* Without a member, the internet community will never be able to legally separate IANA from ICANN. That is the one, single, unquestionable power that the NTIA currently has: to cut that contract. Under the Board's MEM plan, that unquestionable right does not and will not exist.
* Without a member, the Board can pass a two-thirds resolution to move its headquarters to Beijing and there is nothing the rest of the internet community can do about it. The Board's MEM approach is so convoluted that it could be tied up in pseudo-legislation for the next decade. The member approach provides a legal, unassailable right to reject that and at the same time kick the Board off for good measure.
These are clear scenarios that would currently never happen because the NTIA is in charge. When the NTIA is gone, they have to become impossible. And the member model is the clear path, written into existing US corporate law i.e. not some special hodge-podge of ideas dreamed up in the penthouse suite of an LA hotel.
Tell that to Congress and then let ICANN Corporate explain why their approach is better.
* Last suggestion: stop calling it the "single member model". Call it something that makes immediate sense to everyone and has a positive feel to it. That way people can understand it. And you give the Board a way to save face.
Hope this is helpful.
Kieren
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Paul,
to be precise, categoric and emphatic, we want the reasons (WHY).
We have seen shared the understanding of WHAT the Board is saying.
And apparently we need to find out how to ask the Board, because they seem to have issues with it.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 27 Sep 2015, at 15:15, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Yes oracle of Delphi. What is the Board view? Nobody asked you say. We are asking now?
-- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 27 September 2015, 06:09PM -04:00 from Dr Eberhard W Lisse < epilisse@gmail.com>:
Than what is it, what you are stating?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 27 Sep 2015, at 14:14, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aceo@auda.org.au>> wrote:
No El, that is emphatically, categorically and precisely not what I am stating.
Cheers,
Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 07:06 , Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aepilisse@gmail.com>> wrote:
Chris,
are you seriously stating that the Board does not have to give reasons because it was unaware we would like to unserstand why, or are are saying "You gotta ask me nicely"? (Jack Nicholson as Col Jessup in "A few good men")
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On 27 Sep 2015, 13:31 -0700, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aceo@auda.org.au>>, wrote:
[...]
But you did not ask the Board to expand on its comments or explain why it had a problem with anything in the CCWG report.
Cheers,
Chris
_______________________________________________ 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
Excellent advice Kieren - thank you. On 28/09/2015 15:06, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
To get back to the initial theme of this email thread: communications.
Yes, the CCWG report as it currently stands is severely lacking in clear communications.
I doubt that clear communications will resolve the current impasse but I have yet to see a single situation where clear communications has not helped.
Here is my advice to this group, based on having been a comms professional for 20 years.
1. Keep your report. It is how this group works. Trying to bend it into clear communications for the rest of the world will be a tiring and pointless task.
2. Write a second report specifically designed for non-ICANNers to read. Think: Congressmen, your own senior VPs whose eyes rollover whenever you mention the word "ICANN". Smart people who couldn't care less about ICANN but do want to be up-to-date and informed about important developments.
3. Create a sub-group of people who actually write those kinds of reports for a living to produce the second report.
4. Here is what is missing in what the CCWG is currently proposing:
* This is no clear rationale for why these changes are needed * There is no clear explanation for why these solutions were chosen * There is no clear explanation for what happens if these things aren't done
5. Here are the components of the current CCWG plans that undermine it:
* It is both too vague and too detailed * Too vague: the overall scaffolding is not explained sufficiently or clearly. * Too detailed: no one but not one outside the 50 GNSO obsessives in this world want anything to do with obscure voting procedures that they will never participate in. And no one but no one wants to read pages about the process you followed except in the most enormously general terms.
* It is too complex * If you want the internet community to override the Board, then it needs to be clear to people outside ICANN how that works. Just imagine a completely different organization.
Imagine you are reading a report about how the car industry is allowed to overrule the international body that regulates emissions. If you are faced with a dozen pages over how a specific subgroup of the car industry, under a weighted voting system, is able to overrule a decision not withstanding a challenge from a specific group of plant union workers who would then be expected to enter an as-yet unspecified arbitration process whose final result would require a separate process, also under weighted voting, that would reconsider the results of the report and decides whether to empower a new group....
You see that and you say: this is a mess and won't ever work.
But if you read: an override would require all groups from the manufacturers to the dealers to the pant worker union to agree... well then you can have some confidence in it.
The shorter version of this point is: the GNSO needs to pull its head out its ass.
Now to get to the nub of it:
There are several very, very good reasons why there should be a "member" of ICANN. Focus on them (at least in the second, clear comms, report).
Two of the biggest I would say are:
* Without a member, the internet community will never be able to legally separate IANA from ICANN. That is the one, single, unquestionable power that the NTIA currently has: to cut that contract. Under the Board's MEM plan, that unquestionable right does not and will not exist.
* Without a member, the Board can pass a two-thirds resolution to move its headquarters to Beijing and there is nothing the rest of the internet community can do about it. The Board's MEM approach is so convoluted that it could be tied up in pseudo-legislation for the next decade. The member approach provides a legal, unassailable right to reject that and at the same time kick the Board off for good measure.
These are clear scenarios that would currently never happen because the NTIA is in charge. When the NTIA is gone, they have to become impossible. And the member model is the clear path, written into existing US corporate law i.e. not some special hodge-podge of ideas dreamed up in the penthouse suite of an LA hotel.
Tell that to Congress and then let ICANN Corporate explain why their approach is better.
* Last suggestion: stop calling it the "single member model". Call it something that makes immediate sense to everyone and has a positive feel to it. That way people can understand it. And you give the Board a way to save face.
Hope this is helpful.
Kieren
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:
Paul,
to be precise, categoric and emphatic, we want the reasons (WHY).
We have seen shared the understanding of WHAT the Board is saying.
And apparently we need to find out how to ask the Board, because they seem to have issues with it.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 27 Sep 2015, at 15:15, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
Yes oracle of Delphi. What is the Board view? Nobody asked you say. We are asking now?
-- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android
Sunday, 27 September 2015, 06:09PM -04:00 from Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>>:
Than what is it, what you are stating?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 27 Sep 2015, at 14:14, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aceo@auda.org.au>> wrote:
No El, that is emphatically, categorically and precisely not what I am stating.
Cheers,
Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 07:06 , Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aepilisse@gmail.com>> wrote:
Chris,
are you seriously stating that the Board does not have to give reasons because it was unaware we would like to unserstand why, or are are saying "You gotta ask me nicely"? (Jack Nicholson as Col Jessup in "A few good men")
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On 27 Sep 2015, 13:31 -0700, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aceo@auda.org.au>>, wrote:
[...]
But you did not ask the Board to expand on its comments or explain why it had a problem with anything in the CCWG report.
Cheers,
Chris
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Excellent advice Kieren - thank you. On 28/09/2015 15:06, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
To get back to the initial theme of this email thread: communications.
Yes, the CCWG report as it currently stands is severely lacking in clear communications.
I doubt that clear communications will resolve the current impasse but I have yet to see a single situation where clear communications has not helped.
Here is my advice to this group, based on having been a comms professional for 20 years.
1. Keep your report. It is how this group works. Trying to bend it into clear communications for the rest of the world will be a tiring and pointless task.
2. Write a second report specifically designed for non-ICANNers to read. Think: Congressmen, your own senior VPs whose eyes rollover whenever you mention the word "ICANN". Smart people who couldn't care less about ICANN but do want to be up-to-date and informed about important developments.
3. Create a sub-group of people who actually write those kinds of reports for a living to produce the second report.
4. Here is what is missing in what the CCWG is currently proposing:
* This is no clear rationale for why these changes are needed * There is no clear explanation for why these solutions were chosen * There is no clear explanation for what happens if these things aren't done
5. Here are the components of the current CCWG plans that undermine it:
* It is both too vague and too detailed * Too vague: the overall scaffolding is not explained sufficiently or clearly. * Too detailed: no one but not one outside the 50 GNSO obsessives in this world want anything to do with obscure voting procedures that they will never participate in. And no one but no one wants to read pages about the process you followed except in the most enormously general terms.
* It is too complex * If you want the internet community to override the Board, then it needs to be clear to people outside ICANN how that works. Just imagine a completely different organization.
Imagine you are reading a report about how the car industry is allowed to overrule the international body that regulates emissions. If you are faced with a dozen pages over how a specific subgroup of the car industry, under a weighted voting system, is able to overrule a decision not withstanding a challenge from a specific group of plant union workers who would then be expected to enter an as-yet unspecified arbitration process whose final result would require a separate process, also under weighted voting, that would reconsider the results of the report and decides whether to empower a new group....
You see that and you say: this is a mess and won't ever work.
But if you read: an override would require all groups from the manufacturers to the dealers to the pant worker union to agree... well then you can have some confidence in it.
The shorter version of this point is: the GNSO needs to pull its head out its ass.
Now to get to the nub of it:
There are several very, very good reasons why there should be a "member" of ICANN. Focus on them (at least in the second, clear comms, report).
Two of the biggest I would say are:
* Without a member, the internet community will never be able to legally separate IANA from ICANN. That is the one, single, unquestionable power that the NTIA currently has: to cut that contract. Under the Board's MEM plan, that unquestionable right does not and will not exist.
* Without a member, the Board can pass a two-thirds resolution to move its headquarters to Beijing and there is nothing the rest of the internet community can do about it. The Board's MEM approach is so convoluted that it could be tied up in pseudo-legislation for the next decade. The member approach provides a legal, unassailable right to reject that and at the same time kick the Board off for good measure.
These are clear scenarios that would currently never happen because the NTIA is in charge. When the NTIA is gone, they have to become impossible. And the member model is the clear path, written into existing US corporate law i.e. not some special hodge-podge of ideas dreamed up in the penthouse suite of an LA hotel.
Tell that to Congress and then let ICANN Corporate explain why their approach is better.
* Last suggestion: stop calling it the "single member model". Call it something that makes immediate sense to everyone and has a positive feel to it. That way people can understand it. And you give the Board a way to save face.
Hope this is helpful.
Kieren
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:
Paul,
to be precise, categoric and emphatic, we want the reasons (WHY).
We have seen shared the understanding of WHAT the Board is saying.
And apparently we need to find out how to ask the Board, because they seem to have issues with it.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 27 Sep 2015, at 15:15, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
Yes oracle of Delphi. What is the Board view? Nobody asked you say. We are asking now?
-- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android
Sunday, 27 September 2015, 06:09PM -04:00 from Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>>:
Than what is it, what you are stating?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 27 Sep 2015, at 14:14, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aceo@auda.org.au>> wrote:
No El, that is emphatically, categorically and precisely not what I am stating.
Cheers,
Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 07:06 , Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aepilisse@gmail.com>> wrote:
Chris,
are you seriously stating that the Board does not have to give reasons because it was unaware we would like to unserstand why, or are are saying "You gotta ask me nicely"? (Jack Nicholson as Col Jessup in "A few good men")
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On 27 Sep 2015, 13:31 -0700, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aceo@auda.org.au>>, wrote:
[...]
But you did not ask the Board to expand on its comments or explain why it had a problem with anything in the CCWG report.
Cheers,
Chris
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Chris, this is unfortunately untrue. Thomas asked this question very early on in the meeting in LA and it was directed to Dr. Crocker. Dr. Crocker then restated that the Board’s concerns were as contained in its public comments. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0F9E7.5DF281C0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Disspain Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 1:04 PM To: Thomas Rickert Cc: Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community@icann.org) Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas I disagree Thomas. You asked if the list covered the items upon which there was consensus and which there was not. I responded to that question by suggesting a change of wording to one of the items. At no time did you ask the Board to expand upon its comments or explain why it had a problem with anything in the CCWG report. Cheers, Chris On 28 Sep 2015, at 05:55 , Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> wrote: Just to be clear, I asked the board multiple times to share their concerns to a list we produced. That would have been one opportunity to speak to that, Chris. Thomas ======== rickert.net<http://rickert.net/> PS - Sent from my cell. Please excuse typos and brevity. Am 27.09.2015 um 09:20 schrieb Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>>: Hi Malcolm, The Board was not asked that question. Cheers, Chris On 28 Sep 2015, at 02:16 , Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net<mailto:malcolm@linx.net>> wrote: On 27/09/2015 15:48, Nigel Roberts wrote: Unless the community give up the idea of ICANN having members (whether one or seven billion) the Board will not agree a common proposal. I wish I had been able to attend the face-to-face meeting. Were the Board able to be any more clear as to why they insist on the community giving up on the idea of having at least a single member? -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ 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.
But: let's move forward and not waste time on fingerpointing. All the best, Thomas ======== rickert.net PS - Sent from my cell. Please excuse typos and brevity.
Am 27.09.2015 um 12:55 schrieb Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>:
Just to be clear, I asked the board multiple times to share their concerns to a list we produced. That would have been one opportunity to speak to that, Chris.
Thomas
======== rickert.net
PS - Sent from my cell. Please excuse typos and brevity.
Am 27.09.2015 um 09:20 schrieb Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au>:
Hi Malcolm,
The Board was not asked that question.
Cheers,
Chris
On 28 Sep 2015, at 02:16 , Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 27/09/2015 15:48, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Unless the community give up the idea of ICANN having members (whether one or seven billion) the Board will not agree a common proposal.
I wish I had been able to attend the face-to-face meeting.
Were the Board able to be any more clear as to why they insist on the community giving up on the idea of having at least a single member?
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ 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
It's not just the Board; it was clear to me from Larry's remarks that the NTIA will not buy into a member model either. And if they aren't buying into it, it will not happen. Cheers. Stephen Deerhake -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 12:16 PM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas On 27/09/2015 15:48, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Unless the community give up the idea of ICANN having members (whether one or seven billion) the Board will not agree a common proposal.
I wish I had been able to attend the face-to-face meeting. Were the Board able to be any more clear as to why they insist on the community giving up on the idea of having at least a single member? -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thank you Stephen for the explanation in absence of rationale. So much for the legal recommendation to have at least one member under the Law of California. Look forward to the simpler compromise model that should be somewhere between (less than) one member and (more than just) enforceable arbitration, if I got the picture right. Carlos Raúl On Sep 27, 2015 3:21 PM, "Stephen Deerhake" <sdeerhake@nic.as> wrote:
It's not just the Board; it was clear to me from Larry's remarks that the NTIA will not buy into a member model either. And if they aren't buying into it, it will not happen.
Cheers. Stephen Deerhake
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 12:16 PM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas
On 27/09/2015 15:48, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Unless the community give up the idea of ICANN having members (whether one or seven billion) the Board will not agree a common proposal.
I wish I had been able to attend the face-to-face meeting.
Were the Board able to be any more clear as to why they insist on the community giving up on the idea of having at least a single member?
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
NTIA has told Congress exactly the opposite that they have no position on the membership model. -- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 27 September 2015, 05:18PM -04:00 from "Stephen Deerhake" < sdeerhake@nic.as> :
It's not just the Board; it was clear to me from Larry's remarks that the NTIA will not buy into a member model either. And if they aren't buying into it, it will not happen.
Cheers. Stephen Deerhake
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 12:16 PM To: Nigel Roberts < nigel@channelisles.net >; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas
On 27/09/2015 15:48, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Unless the community give up the idea of ICANN having members (whether one or seven billion) the Board will not agree a common proposal.
I wish I had been able to attend the face-to-face meeting.
Were the Board able to be any more clear as to why they insist on the community giving up on the idea of having at least a single member?
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Why deal in facts, Paul, when you can have an opinion? I look forward to receiving the full analysis of the public comments so we can move forward in an appropriate, measured. respectful and proper way. Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 10:35 PM To: "sdeerhake@nic.as" <sdeerhake@nic.as> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas NTIA has told Congress exactly the opposite that they have no position on the membership model. -- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 27 September 2015, 05:18PM -04:00 from "Stephen Deerhake" <sdeerhake@nic.as>: It's not just the Board; it was clear to me from Larry's remarks that the NTIA will not buy into a member model either. And if they aren't buying into it, it will not happen. Cheers. Stephen Deerhake -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 12:16 PM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas On 27/09/2015 15:48, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Unless the community give up the idea of ICANN having members (whether one or seven billion) the Board will not agree a common proposal.
I wish I had been able to attend the face-to-face meeting. Were the Board able to be any more clear as to why they insist on the community giving up on the idea of having at least a single member? -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Stephen Not being able to review the transcripts yet could you clarify if Larry said that specifically or you are interpreting what he said. That would be very helpful. Many thanks. Matthew On 27/09/2015 17:18, Stephen Deerhake wrote:
It's not just the Board; it was clear to me from Larry's remarks that the NTIA will not buy into a member model either. And if they aren't buying into it, it will not happen.
Cheers. Stephen Deerhake
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 12:16 PM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas
On 27/09/2015 15:48, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Unless the community give up the idea of ICANN having members (whether one or seven billion) the Board will not agree a common proposal. I wish I had been able to attend the face-to-face meeting.
Were the Board able to be any more clear as to why they insist on the community giving up on the idea of having at least a single member?
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
My understanding exactly. Alan On September 27, 2015 7:48:29 AM PDT, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>
Let me try my understaning:
Unless there is a common proposal to NTIA, the transition will not (and
MAY NEVER) happen.
Unless the community give up the idea of ICANN having members (whether one or seven billion) the Board will not agree a common proposal.
participants (24)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Alan Greenberg -
Arun Sukumar -
Avri Doria -
Carlos Raul -
Chartier, Mike S -
Chris Disspain -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Edward Morris -
Greg Shatan -
James Gannon -
Jonathan Zuck -
Kieren McCarthy -
Malcolm Hutty -
Matthew Shears -
Nigel Roberts -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Buckingham -
Roelof Meijer -
Rudolph Daniel -
Stephanie Perrin -
Stephen Deerhake -
Thomas Rickert