Community not sufficiently representative???
All, I do not post too often on this list, but have been trying to follow along in the discussion. The recent comments by the ICANN Board about the lack of representativeness of the current SO/AC structure to justify the single member model have rubbed me the wrong way and I think I have figured out why. All contracted parties agree to follow Consensus Policies, which are defined as those policies developed in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws. According to the Agreements, "Consensus Policies and the procedures by which they are developed shall be designed to produce, to the extent possible, a consensus of Internet stakeholders, including the operators of gTLDs." See Exhibit A of new TLD Agreements. If the ICANN Board is basically saying that the community is not sufficiently representative for purposes of holding ICANN accountable, then how can they ever argue that the community is sufficiently representative to produce a consensus of Internet stakeholders for the purpose of developing Consensus Policies. I have never heard the Board before make that argument...that it could not take a proposed policy and impose it on the contracted parties because they did not believe the community was sufficiently representative. The fact is we DO have about 10 Consensus Policies for which the Board DID determine that the policies produced by a sufficiently representative community. You shouldn't be able to argue that the community is sufficiently representative for one purpose (Consensus Policies), but not for the purposes of holding itself accountable P.S. For any future Consensus Policy, the Board has opened up a new area of argument if a contracted party does not want to follow it...namely that the Consensus Policy was not developed through a sufficiently representative policy process. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
On 06-Oct-15 17:41, Jeff Neuman wrote:
P.S. For any future Consensus Policy, the Board has opened up a new area of argument if a contracted party does not want to follow it…..namely that the Consensus Policy was not developed through a sufficiently representative policy process.
Indeed. and I can just imagine how this will play in IRP decisions. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Hi, I think we should make a distinction; there is difference between having control on names related policies and having control over entire ICANN accountability which goes beyond the walls of names and also beyond just policies. The accountability mechanism that has been proposed does effectively create a power shift to the community, the PDP on the other hand maintains power with where it should rightly be (based on ratification requirement). The way the 2 scenarios is evaluated against representation would certainly be different as the risks are not the same. The way the president responds to change in states constitution vis the national constitution would sure differ. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 6 Oct 2015 22:50, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 06-Oct-15 17:41, Jeff Neuman wrote:
P.S. For any future Consensus Policy, the Board has opened up a new area of argument if a contracted party does not want to follow it…..namely that the Consensus Policy was not developed through a sufficiently representative policy process.
Indeed. and I can just imagine how this will play in IRP decisions.
avri
--- 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
Seun, With all due respect, you have stated a conclusion without anything to support your conclusion that there is a difference. I could argue that with respect to forcing registries and registrars to adopt new policies could actually have more of an impact on security and stability of the Internet than having the Community given a right to remove a Board of Director or final authority over the budget. I believe that the Board should respond to my comment on how they can be representative for one purpose, but not for the purpose of being accountable. Right now it looks like their argument is a little too self-serving. But I am happy to hear why they disagree. But I have not seen a response yet from them. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 5:25 AM To: avri <avri@acm.org> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Community not sufficiently representative??? Hi, I think we should make a distinction; there is difference between having control on names related policies and having control over entire ICANN accountability which goes beyond the walls of names and also beyond just policies. The accountability mechanism that has been proposed does effectively create a power shift to the community, the PDP on the other hand maintains power with where it should rightly be (based on ratification requirement). The way the 2 scenarios is evaluated against representation would certainly be different as the risks are not the same. The way the president responds to change in states constitution vis the national constitution would sure differ. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 6 Oct 2015 22:50, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> > wrote: On 06-Oct-15 17:41, Jeff Neuman wrote:
P.S. For any future Consensus Policy, the Board has opened up a new area of argument if a contracted party does not want to follow it…..namely that the Consensus Policy was not developed through a sufficiently representative policy process.
Indeed. and I can just imagine how this will play in IRP decisions. avri --- 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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Jeff, The current claim is that board could unilaterally create and impose policy, that aspect of unilaterally creating policies is one of the issues I believe is being handled in this process and also at the GNSO level. I don't understand why the word impose(or force) will be inappropriate in a scenario where the community develops policy and then ICANN board ratifies for staff implemention. From my experience in policy development within the numbers community, any ratified policy (unless otherwise stated) is practically imposed on non-legacy resource holders. Not every resource holder likes the implemented policy. That's just normal and it will be violation of board's fiduciary duty to approve a policy that is determined to affect the security and stability of DNS/Internet That said, you are right that board should respond (as applicable) and my response is solely personal. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 7 Oct 2015 16:30, "Jeff Neuman" <jeff.neuman@valideus.com> wrote:
Seun,
With all due respect, you have stated a conclusion without anything to support your conclusion that there is a difference. I could argue that with respect to forcing registries and registrars to adopt new policies could actually have more of an impact on security and stability of the Internet than having the Community given a right to remove a Board of Director or final authority over the budget.
I believe that the Board should respond to my comment on how they can be representative for one purpose, but not for the purpose of being accountable. Right now it looks like their argument is a little too self-serving. But I am happy to hear why they disagree.
But I have not seen a response yet from them.
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Wednesday, October 7, 2015 5:25 AM *To:* avri <avri@acm.org> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Community not sufficiently representative???
Hi,
I think we should make a distinction; there is difference between having control on names related policies and having control over entire ICANN accountability which goes beyond the walls of names and also beyond just policies.
The accountability mechanism that has been proposed does effectively create a power shift to the community, the PDP on the other hand maintains power with where it should rightly be (based on ratification requirement).
The way the 2 scenarios is evaluated against representation would certainly be different as the risks are not the same. The way the president responds to change in states constitution vis the national constitution would sure differ.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 6 Oct 2015 22:50, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 06-Oct-15 17:41, Jeff Neuman wrote:
P.S. For any future Consensus Policy, the Board has opened up a new area of argument if a contracted party does not want to follow it…..namely that the Consensus Policy was not developed through a sufficiently representative policy process.
Indeed. and I can just imagine how this will play in IRP decisions.
avri
--- 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
+1 Jeff Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D100FE.019C51D0] 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 Jeff Neuman Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 8:30 AM To: 'Seun Ojedeji'; 'avri' Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Community not sufficiently representative??? Seun, With all due respect, you have stated a conclusion without anything to support your conclusion that there is a difference. I could argue that with respect to forcing registries and registrars to adopt new policies could actually have more of an impact on security and stability of the Internet than having the Community given a right to remove a Board of Director or final authority over the budget. I believe that the Board should respond to my comment on how they can be representative for one purpose, but not for the purpose of being accountable. Right now it looks like their argument is a little too self-serving. But I am happy to hear why they disagree. But I have not seen a response yet from them. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 5:25 AM To: avri <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Community not sufficiently representative??? Hi, I think we should make a distinction; there is difference between having control on names related policies and having control over entire ICANN accountability which goes beyond the walls of names and also beyond just policies. The accountability mechanism that has been proposed does effectively create a power shift to the community, the PDP on the other hand maintains power with where it should rightly be (based on ratification requirement). The way the 2 scenarios is evaluated against representation would certainly be different as the risks are not the same. The way the president responds to change in states constitution vis the national constitution would sure differ. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 6 Oct 2015 22:50, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: On 06-Oct-15 17:41, Jeff Neuman wrote:
P.S. For any future Consensus Policy, the Board has opened up a new area of argument if a contracted party does not want to follow it…..namely that the Consensus Policy was not developed through a sufficiently representative policy process.
Indeed. and I can just imagine how this will play in IRP decisions. avri --- 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<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.
Also agree. Recall that ICANN has other mechanisms to amend our agreements outside of the PDP and over our objections. Thanks- J. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 14:45 To: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>>, 'Seun Ojedeji' <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>, 'avri' <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Community not sufficiently representative??? +1 Jeff Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D100FE.019C51D0] 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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 8:30 AM To: 'Seun Ojedeji'; 'avri' Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Community not sufficiently representative??? Seun, With all due respect, you have stated a conclusion without anything to support your conclusion that there is a difference. I could argue that with respect to forcing registries and registrars to adopt new policies could actually have more of an impact on security and stability of the Internet than having the Community given a right to remove a Board of Director or final authority over the budget. I believe that the Board should respond to my comment on how they can be representative for one purpose, but not for the purpose of being accountable. Right now it looks like their argument is a little too self-serving. But I am happy to hear why they disagree. But I have not seen a response yet from them. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA| Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 5:25 AM To: avri <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Community not sufficiently representative??? Hi, I think we should make a distinction; there is difference between having control on names related policies and having control over entire ICANN accountability which goes beyond the walls of names and also beyond just policies. The accountability mechanism that has been proposed does effectively create a power shift to the community, the PDP on the other hand maintains power with where it should rightly be (based on ratification requirement). The way the 2 scenarios is evaluated against representation would certainly be different as the risks are not the same. The way the president responds to change in states constitution vis the national constitution would sure differ. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 6 Oct 2015 22:50, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: On 06-Oct-15 17:41, Jeff Neuman wrote:
P.S. For any future Consensus Policy, the Board has opened up a new area of argument if a contracted party does not want to follow it.....namely that the Consensus Policy was not developed through a sufficiently representative policy process.
Indeed. and I can just imagine how this will play in IRP decisions. avri --- 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<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.
Excellent points, Jeff. It is a rather nasty can of worms that has been opened. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 5:42 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Community not sufficiently representative??? All, I do not post too often on this list, but have been trying to follow along in the discussion. The recent comments by the ICANN Board about the lack of representativeness of the current SO/AC structure to justify the single member model have rubbed me the wrong way and I think I have figured out why. All contracted parties agree to follow Consensus Policies, which are defined as those policies developed in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws. According to the Agreements, "Consensus Policies and the procedures by which they are developed shall be designed to produce, to the extent possible, a consensus of Internet stakeholders, including the operators of gTLDs." See Exhibit A of new TLD Agreements. If the ICANN Board is basically saying that the community is not sufficiently representative for purposes of holding ICANN accountable, then how can they ever argue that the community is sufficiently representative to produce a consensus of Internet stakeholders for the purpose of developing Consensus Policies. I have never heard the Board before make that argument.....that it could not take a proposed policy and impose it on the contracted parties because they did not believe the community was sufficiently representative. The fact is we DO have about 10 Consensus Policies for which the Board DID determine that the policies produced by a sufficiently representative community. You shouldn't be able to argue that the community is sufficiently representative for one purpose (Consensus Policies), but not for the purposes of holding itself accountable P.S. For any future Consensus Policy, the Board has opened up a new area of argument if a contracted party does not want to follow it.....namely that the Consensus Policy was not developed through a sufficiently representative policy process. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
participants (6)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Avri Doria -
James M. Bladel -
Jeff Neuman -
Phil Corwin -
Seun Ojedeji