Dear CCWG,
From our latest exchanges regarding the new Mission Statement and as stated in the chat yesterday, DK is of the view that the Board can of course only take decisions based on GAC advice that is within the ICANN's mission. But what we have been seeking is a clear answer to see if the proposed changes to the Mission Statement would imply that the Board in the future would be further constrained in taking GAC advice into account.
I understood from Becky during our CCWG call yesterday, "that ICANN should be able to continue to accept and implement GAC advice as it has been"- in other words the Board will have the same possibility to take into account GAC advice in the future (after the IANA transition) as the Board has today. If that is the case, I would think that it is now crystal clear to me. I just want be to be assured that nobody in the CCWG is going to object to this conclusion. If that is the case - then I will rest my case! If the answer is no, please specify how the Board would be further constrained in taking GAC advice into account after the transition. Best, Finn Kind regards Finn Petersen Director of International ICT Relations DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Langelinie Allé17 DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 3529 1013 Mobil2: +45 2072 7131 E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk<mailto:FinPet@erst.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
Hi, I think testing the assertion can be done using a stress test. Though I think the stress test needs to go beyond just GAC advice, and needs to consider not only advice from the ACs, but degrees of policy making freedom by the SOs and decision making by the Board. While the goal is to make the Board and the rest of us more accountable, the goal of WS1 is not to change the issues to which policy, advice and decisions is applied. avri On 08-Jan-16 14:05, Finn Petersen wrote:
Dear CCWG,
From our latest exchanges regarding the new Mission Statement and as stated in the chat yesterday, DK is of the view that the Board can of course only take decisions based on GAC advice that is within the ICANN’s mission. But what we have been seeking is a clear answer to see if the proposed changes to the Mission Statement would imply that the Board in the future would be further constrained in taking GAC advice into account.
I understood from Becky during our CCWG call yesterday, “that ICANN should be able to continue to accept and implement GAC advice as it has been”– in other words the Board will have the same possibility to take into account GAC advice in the future (after the IANA transition) as the Board has today. If that is the case, I would think that it is now crystal clear to me.
I just want be to be assured that nobody in the CCWG is going to object to this conclusion. If that is the case – then I will rest my case!
If the answer is no, please specify how the Board would be further constrained in taking GAC advice into account after the transition.
Best,
Finn
Kind regards
*Finn Petersen*
Director of International ICT Relations
*DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY*
Langelinie Allé17 DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 3529 1013
Mobil2: +45 2072 7131 E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk <mailto:FinPet@erst.dk>
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On 08/01/2016 20:06, Avri Doria wrote:
I think testing the assertion can be done using a stress test.
At first sight, stress testing accidental changes to the Mission sounds sensible and prudent. However, on reflection I think it would be completely destructive of the possibility of achieving consensus in this group. Let me explain. Milton thinks that when Fadi launched Netmundial he was acting outside ICANN's Mission at the time, never mind now. Avri thinks this was within the scope of the Mission. Nor is this just Milton and Avri: each of them have quite a lot of people who agree with them of this point. At the moment, Milton and Avri can agree to disagree: nothing can be done about Netmundial now, so the argument is moot. We can move on. "Stress testing" for inadvertent changes to the Mission by assessing past actions against the proposed text means going back over old arguments like this, and seeing who is shown to be right when the proposed text is applied. Essentially, this means either (a) proving that Milton is unequivocally wrong or (b) accepting that Milton may have an arguable point under our proposed text, and so amending it so as to remove any opportunity for him to argue his point. How could Milton possibly support the outcome of such a process? This is not just about this one instance either: stress testing implies that we then going on to do the same analysis and text-"correction" for any other area where there is a disagreement, or an identifiable potential disagreement, as to whether ICANN's past action were within the Mission. Personally, I happen to agree with Avri on the legitimacy of ICANN's involvement in launching Netmundial. But I don't want to prove it at a cost of forcing Milton to oppose transition - along with everyone who agrees with Milton on this, and everyone else who thinks the Board has ever acted improperly in the past. Malcolm. -- 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 Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
As I explained in my last message I think that a more objective running of this stress test is possible. I find it problematic to say new wording does not change the mission without some sort of testing to inform the conclusion. By all means the stress test should be as fact based as possible. This may also be a good function for the advising power of our experts, especially those who have legal training and have worked in environments where such discrimination was necessary. Whether Milton and I, or you and I, ever agree of what is in scope or out of scope is irrelevant. Can we show that the text is equivalent, is the question I think needs answering. There are many other dimensions of the Board acting properly or not. For example they can make a decision on an in-scope issue without proper bottom-up process. This would be improper and reason for going to the escalation process in protest after transition, yet would be irrelevant on the scope issues that are precipitated by changing the words of the mission beyond the words needed to satisfy our partners from the other Operational Communities. avri On 09-Jan-16 09:24, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
On 08/01/2016 20:06, Avri Doria wrote:
I think testing the assertion can be done using a stress test. At first sight, stress testing accidental changes to the Mission sounds sensible and prudent. However, on reflection I think it would be completely destructive of the possibility of achieving consensus in this group.
Let me explain.
Milton thinks that when Fadi launched Netmundial he was acting outside ICANN's Mission at the time, never mind now. Avri thinks this was within the scope of the Mission. Nor is this just Milton and Avri: each of them have quite a lot of people who agree with them of this point.
At the moment, Milton and Avri can agree to disagree: nothing can be done about Netmundial now, so the argument is moot. We can move on.
"Stress testing" for inadvertent changes to the Mission by assessing past actions against the proposed text means going back over old arguments like this, and seeing who is shown to be right when the proposed text is applied. Essentially, this means either (a) proving that Milton is unequivocally wrong or (b) accepting that Milton may have an arguable point under our proposed text, and so amending it so as to remove any opportunity for him to argue his point.
How could Milton possibly support the outcome of such a process?
This is not just about this one instance either: stress testing implies that we then going on to do the same analysis and text-"correction" for any other area where there is a disagreement, or an identifiable potential disagreement, as to whether ICANN's past action were within the Mission.
Personally, I happen to agree with Avri on the legitimacy of ICANN's involvement in launching Netmundial. But I don't want to prove it at a cost of forcing Milton to oppose transition - along with everyone who agrees with Milton on this, and everyone else who thinks the Board has ever acted improperly in the past.
Malcolm.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
GAC Advice should be taken into account if and only if it is consistent with Bylaws and Mission statement ,including scope of work Regards Kavouss
Hi, On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 12:08:32PM -0500, Avri Doria wrote:
Whether Milton and I, or you and I, ever agree of what is in scope or out of scope is irrelevant. Can we show that the text is equivalent, is the question I think needs answering.
Overall, I agree with Avri's view that testing the new text against past decisions is a good heuristic for checking that the new text doesn't change the mission. I would hope, however, that we'd understand the test such that, if any past decision were not obviously supported by the new text, the new text would not necessarily be judged problematic. After all, the new text is supposed to clarify. It could be that, at the margins, particularly contentious past cases would be decided differently with appeal to the new text. That would be ok, I think, as long as those cases were the contentious ones. I'm aware this yields the new problem that we decide what cases are contentious. I have no idea how to do that. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Finn,
From our latest exchanges regarding the new Mission Statement and as stated in the chat yesterday, DK is of the view that the Board can of course only take decisions based on GAC advice that is within the ICANN's mission.
MM: Thank you for that. But what we have been seeking is a clear answer to see if the proposed changes to the Mission Statement would imply that the Board in the future would be further constrained in taking GAC advice into account. MM: Well, it depends on the advice, doesn't it? I understood from Becky during our CCWG call yesterday, "that ICANN should be able to continue to accept and implement GAC advice as it has been"- in other words the Board will have the same possibility to take into account GAC advice in the future (after the IANA transition) as the Board has today. If that is the case, I would think that it is now crystal clear to me. MM: As above, if GAC advises ICANN to do things that are outside its mission you can expect challenges.
Milton, With all respect - you are answering the question! Sorry if I had not formulated the question properly. So let me try again. Is there, in your view, any kind of GAC advice that today (with the current Mission Statement) is within ICANN's mission, but that in the future with the revised Mission Statement as defined in the CCWG 3rd draft report would be outside the revised mission for ICANN, so that the Board does not have the possibility any longer to take the advice into account? I hope the question is clearer now. There are only two possible answers: yes or no! Best, Finn Fra: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu] Sendt: 8. januar 2016 23:18 Til: Finn Petersen; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Emne: RE: Mission Statement Finn,
From our latest exchanges regarding the new Mission Statement and as stated in the chat yesterday, DK is of the view that the Board can of course only take decisions based on GAC advice that is within the ICANN's mission.
MM: Thank you for that. But what we have been seeking is a clear answer to see if the proposed changes to the Mission Statement would imply that the Board in the future would be further constrained in taking GAC advice into account. MM: Well, it depends on the advice, doesn't it? I understood from Becky during our CCWG call yesterday, "that ICANN should be able to continue to accept and implement GAC advice as it has been"- in other words the Board will have the same possibility to take into account GAC advice in the future (after the IANA transition) as the Board has today. If that is the case, I would think that it is now crystal clear to me. MM: As above, if GAC advises ICANN to do things that are outside its mission you can expect challenges.
I think that this is a critically important question (or set of questions). I would not limit this inquiry to GAC advice. As such, I find myself somewhat more aligned with Avri's and Andrew's formulations, though they are not inconsistent with Finn's formulation, as far as it goes. I would formulate the inquiry somewhat differently (and I think more simply): *What policies that have been adopted by ICANN or actions taken by ICANN would be prohibited as "out of scope" if the revised Mission language is applied?* This avoids, in the first instance, the question of whether these policies or actions are within ICANN's Mission. If any policies or actions are identified as being prohibited under the revised Mission language then either (1) the policies and actions were out of scope when adopted or taken or (2) the ICANN Mission is being changed. Either way, I think it's important to be clear about the effects of the revised language, in order to come to a common understanding of those effects -- whether or not we agree that a particular effect is desirable. We avoided this question once -- through the use of "grandfathering" -- but we shouldn't avoid it again (especially since there is disagreement about how far "grandfathering" goes). The alternative is a future filled with "gotcha" scenarios, where as-yet-unrevealed consequences are unveiled after the transition. This would fail both as a matter of transparency and as a matter of good governance. Greg On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk> wrote:
Milton,
With all respect – you are answering the question! Sorry if I had not formulated the question properly.
So let me try again.
Is there, in your view, any kind of GAC advice that today (with the current Mission Statement) is within ICANN’s mission, but that in the future with the revised Mission Statement as defined in the CCWG 3rd draft report would be outside the revised mission for ICANN, so that the Board does not have the possibility any longer to take the advice into account?
I hope the question is clearer now. There are only two possible answers: yes or no!
Best,
Finn
*Fra:* Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu] *Sendt:* 8. januar 2016 23:18 *Til:* Finn Petersen; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Emne:* RE: Mission Statement
Finn,
From our latest exchanges regarding the new Mission Statement and as stated in the chat yesterday, DK is of the view that the Board can of course only take decisions based on GAC advice that is within the ICANN’s mission.
MM: Thank you for that.
But what we have been seeking is a clear answer to see if the proposed changes to the Mission Statement would imply that the Board in the future would be further constrained in taking GAC advice into account.
MM: Well, it depends on the advice, doesn’t it?
I understood from Becky during our CCWG call yesterday, “that ICANN should be able to continue to accept and implement GAC advice as it has been”– in other words the Board will have the same possibility to take into account GAC advice in the future (after the IANA transition) as the Board has today. If that is the case, I would think that it is now crystal clear to me.
MM: As above, if GAC advises ICANN to do things that are outside its mission you can expect challenges.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Finn Peterson, FYI, we are not changing the intended mission of ICANN. To be more precise, we are giving the community the opportunity to use the IRP to challenge things ICANN does that are outside its stated mission. This means that we have to define the mission more carefully, because its meaning and interpretation will actually matter. Under the current ICANN bylaws and accountability structures, there is no way to challenge ICANN's actions on the grounds that they exceeded its mission. Therefore, the actual definition of the mission mattered less. So, to answer your question: FP: Is there, in your view, any kind of GAC advice that today (with the current Mission Statement) is within ICANN's mission, but that in the future with the revised Mission Statement as defined in the CCWG 3rd draft report would be outside the revised mission for ICANN, so that the Board does not have the possibility any longer to take the advice into account? MM: Yes, I think there are numerous things in the PICs that GAC imposed on registries outside the bottom up policy development process that were outside the mission, but since there was no effective way to appeal them, GAC and ICANN "got away with it." MM: For the sake of the stability of the affected businesses, we have expressed a willingness to accept ("grandmother" or "grandfather," whatever your gender preference) existing PICs. But we would not accept such expansion in the future, if the advice is to do something that takes ICANN outside its mission. FP: I hope the question is clearer now. There are only two possible answers: yes or no! MM: I hope the answer is clearer now. And I hope you understand now that there is a lot more to be said about this than yes or no. Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology
participants (7)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Avri Doria -
Finn Petersen -
Greg Shatan -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Malcolm Hutty -
Mueller, Milton L