W Currie and auDA comments to CCWG
Hi all I thought that the comments lodged by auDA and by Willie Currie were both useful reading. auDA does provide several constructive criticisms that will certainly be useful to WP1, and no doubt more broadly. Willie provides a defence of the multistakeholder model, and of the CCWG's core proposals, and sets out in clear and direct language why the discussion with the Board last week was rather problematic for the majority of those who took part in the call. Willie, as a reminder, is one of the Expert Advisors appointed to assist the CCWG with its work. Worth reading both. auDA: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00009.h... Currie: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00016.h... cheers, Jordan
Hi, I found IAB's comment quite interesting. It simply says; "focus on ability to remove board members and every other thing will be added to you as well". http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00018.h... Seem like what a designator model permits and quite less complicated, perhaps the CCWG may revisit the document from ARIN. That said, I hope the CCWG is paying attention to the continuous concern of whether there could be consensus on issues if the current model is implemented. This just simply means post-transition voting will be the rule of the day while consensus will have no place (not even rough). I doubt that is what multi-stakeholder mean in practice. Nevertheless, I believe there are folks here who knows more about MS than a "technical" me; hopefully they are testing the model against the multi-stakeholder principles Cheers! Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 10 Sep 2015 01:13, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
I thought that the comments lodged by auDA and by Willie Currie were both useful reading.
auDA does provide several constructive criticisms that will certainly be useful to WP1, and no doubt more broadly.
Willie provides a defence of the multistakeholder model, and of the CCWG's core proposals, and sets out in clear and direct language why the discussion with the Board last week was rather problematic for the majority of those who took part in the call.
Willie, as a reminder, is one of the Expert Advisors appointed to assist the CCWG with its work.
Worth reading both.
auDA: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00009.h... Currie: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00016.h...
cheers, Jordan
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I found this observation from Willie Currie very interesting: "A last point on this issue. What weight of evidence should be attached to
an impact assessment such as Jones Day’s? We are not dealing here with an environmental impact assessment where there is hard scientific data to include in the evidence. We are dealing with governance and accountability, which is in the realm of the social and the political. That means that we are dealing with human behaviour in a complex system with multiple variables, well beyond the purchase of a randomised control trial. Judging by the number of words such as `would’, `could’ and `likely’ in Jones Day’s analysis, we are primarily in the space of the speculative."
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I found IAB's comment quite interesting. It simply says; "focus on ability to remove board members and every other thing will be added to you as well".
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00018.h...
Seem like what a designator model permits and quite less complicated, perhaps the CCWG may revisit the document from ARIN.
That said, I hope the CCWG is paying attention to the continuous concern of whether there could be consensus on issues if the current model is implemented. This just simply means post-transition voting will be the rule of the day while consensus will have no place (not even rough). I doubt that is what multi-stakeholder mean in practice. Nevertheless, I believe there are folks here who knows more about MS than a "technical" me; hopefully they are testing the model against the multi-stakeholder principles
Cheers!
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 10 Sep 2015 01:13, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
I thought that the comments lodged by auDA and by Willie Currie were both useful reading.
auDA does provide several constructive criticisms that will certainly be useful to WP1, and no doubt more broadly.
Willie provides a defence of the multistakeholder model, and of the CCWG's core proposals, and sets out in clear and direct language why the discussion with the Board last week was rather problematic for the majority of those who took part in the call.
Willie, as a reminder, is one of the Expert Advisors appointed to assist the CCWG with its work.
Worth reading both.
auDA: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00009.h... Currie: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00016.h...
cheers, Jordan
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- - @arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org> National Law University, New Delhi Ph: +91-9871943272
Jones Day are a law firm hence they will write whatever they can get away with for their clients. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, we just need to take this into perspective. el On 2015-09-10 10:04, Arun Sukumar wrote:
I found this observation from Willie Currie very interesting:
"A last point on this issue. What weight of evidence should be attached to an impact assessment such as Jones Day’s? We are not dealing here with an environmental impact assessment where there is hard scientific data to include in the evidence. We are dealing with governance and accountability, which is in the realm of the social and the political. That means that we are dealing with human behaviour in a complex system with multiple variables, well beyond the purchase of a randomised control trial. Judging by the number of words such as `would’, `could’ and `likely’ in Jones Day’s analysis, we are primarily in the space of the speculative."
[...]
Mr. Currie’s statement about the Board’s intervention captures in clear and direct prose exactly what many of us are instinctively feeling about the Board’s lack of respect for the MSM process. Well done. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 8:13 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] W Currie and auDA comments to CCWG Hi all I thought that the comments lodged by auDA and by Willie Currie were both useful reading. auDA does provide several constructive criticisms that will certainly be useful to WP1, and no doubt more broadly. Willie provides a defence of the multistakeholder model, and of the CCWG's core proposals, and sets out in clear and direct language why the discussion with the Board last week was rather problematic for the majority of those who took part in the call. Willie, as a reminder, is one of the Expert Advisors appointed to assist the CCWG with its work. Worth reading both. auDA: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00009.h... Currie: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00016.h... cheers, Jordan
participants (5)
-
Arun Sukumar -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Jordan Carter -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Seun Ojedeji