The At-Large group advising on Accountability and IANA matters met today (as we have been twice weekly for the last while). It is becoming increasingly clearer that the CMSM model still has a LOT of rough edges that need to be finalized prior to putting forward our proposal as the accountability part of the IANA transition, and my recollection is that in Buenos Aires we were told in no uncertain terms that the proposal needed to be complete and fully implementable prior to being accepted by the NTIA and if necessary, Congress. I fear that the current plan will not meet that target. So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, I am not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition. The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole Designator (CMSD). Following the Buenos Aires meeting, and prior to the CMSM model being introduced, many in the CCWG were willing to consider the Empowered Designator model, and this is a variant that uses the simplified CMSx structure but with the lighter-weight designator mechanism which will be significantly easier to set up. It also addresses the concerns of some with moving to a Membership model for ICANN. I am sending this on my own, but with the knowledge that the concept had a lot of support in my community. Alan
hi Alan I think there are two questions here: - your views in some more detail about the "significantly easier to set up" nature of designator. To my mind this hasn't been substantiated either way - I haven't got information that suggests whether establishing the UA that is the CMSM/D as a designator or a member is simpler. My instinct is that there is not much difference. Could you share what evidence or insight you have? [I'd add, as an aside, that we have now done much more work on member than designator, and so it would seem that there would be more rough edges in a change to that, than in sticking with the current model, but that of course is for discussion.] - whether the designator approach would meet the requirements the CCWG has set out. I'm on clearer ground here that no designator model provides the enforceability for the community powers that the group has identified as important. That was the answer Fadi was given by several of us when he asked "why membership?". We should not underestimate the importance of that enforceability chain to many in the group, and that is the current compromise. Undoing that may have consequences. If the group was to establish a different model that could achieve consensus, there would inevitably need to be another round of community consultation, and no final proposal before Marrakech. So I think we need to take that into account as well. Look forward to your, and everyone's, thoughts. cheers Jordan On 2 September 2015 at 14:26, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
The At-Large group advising on Accountability and IANA matters met today (as we have been twice weekly for the last while). It is becoming increasingly clearer that the CMSM model still has a LOT of rough edges that need to be finalized prior to putting forward our proposal as the accountability part of the IANA transition, and my recollection is that in Buenos Aires we were told in no uncertain terms that the proposal needed to be complete and fully implementable prior to being accepted by the NTIA and if necessary, Congress. I fear that the current plan will not meet that target.
So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, I am not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition.
The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole Designator (CMSD).
Following the Buenos Aires meeting, and prior to the CMSM model being introduced, many in the CCWG were willing to consider the Empowered Designator model, and this is a variant that uses the simplified CMSx structure but with the lighter-weight designator mechanism which will be significantly easier to set up. It also addresses the concerns of some with moving to a Membership model for ICANN.
I am sending this on my own, but with the knowledge that the concept had a lot of support in my community.
Alan
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *
Agree Jordan From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jordan Carter Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 11:51 PM To: Alan Greenberg, Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation... hi Alan I think there are two questions here: - your views in some more detail about the "significantly easier to set up" nature of designator. To my mind this hasn't been substantiated either way - I haven't got information that suggests whether establishing the UA that is the CMSM/D as a designator or a member is simpler. My instinct is that there is not much difference. Could you share what evidence or insight you have? [I'd add, as an aside, that we have now done much more work on member than designator, and so it would seem that there would be more rough edges in a change to that, than in sticking with the current model, but that of course is for discussion.] - whether the designator approach would meet the requirements the CCWG has set out. I'm on clearer ground here that no designator model provides the enforceability for the community powers that the group has identified as important. That was the answer Fadi was given by several of us when he asked "why membership?". We should not underestimate the importance of that enforceability chain to many in the group, and that is the current compromise. Undoing that may have consequences. If the group was to establish a different model that could achieve consensus, there would inevitably need to be another round of community consultation, and no final proposal before Marrakech. So I think we need to take that into account as well. Look forward to your, and everyone's, thoughts. cheers Jordan On 2 September 2015 at 14:26, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: The At-Large group advising on Accountability and IANA matters met today (as we have been twice weekly for the last while). It is becoming increasingly clearer that the CMSM model still has a LOT of rough edges that need to be finalized prior to putting forward our proposal as the accountability part of the IANA transition, and my recollection is that in Buenos Aires we were told in no uncertain terms that the proposal needed to be complete and fully implementable prior to being accepted by the NTIA and if necessary, Congress. I fear that the current plan will not meet that target. So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, I am not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition. The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole Designator (CMSD). Following the Buenos Aires meeting, and prior to the CMSM model being introduced, many in the CCWG were willing to consider the Empowered Designator model, and this is a variant that uses the simplified CMSx structure but with the lighter-weight designator mechanism which will be significantly easier to set up. It also addresses the concerns of some with moving to a Membership model for ICANN. I am sending this on my own, but with the knowledge that the concept had a lot of support in my community. Alan _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz> A better world through a better Internet
On 02/09/2015 03:26, Alan Greenberg wrote:
So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, I am not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition.
The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole Designator (CMSD).
Trying to revive a Designator Model, or any other model that cannot provide enforceability[*], is hardly the way to achieve support for transition. While I understand that you don't think enforceability is important, you surely must realise by now that it is considered essential by many. Even if you succeeded in pushing CCWG into this change, all you would achieve would be to convince a sizable chunk of the community to campaign against transition. Have you communicated to your colleagues in ALAC that you say were enthused by this supposed alternative that it would just provoke opposition to transition altogether? Or are they under the impression that this is something that is likely to win a broad consensus? Malcolm. [*] I'm simplifying slightly by mentioning only enforceability: having a Member also changes how the fiduciary duty works, which is also crucially important. Becky explained this much more articulately than I can. -- 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 Alan, I wholeheartedly support Jordan We can not reconsider what we were about to finalize from our Paris Meeting and start a new round of discussion just 10 days before the expiry of Deadline. I do not think that what Alan proposed is simpler as there is bnot clear criteria to examine its simplicity. I am not in favor of the continuation of the discussion in this regard. As Keith Drazak told in Chat, CMSM is a compromise even if I did not agree to use the term "compromise "as it is the only way that all six?Seven powers could be exercised by the community Legal Advisers have comprehensively described the problem of Designator, unless it is accompanied by the UA approach that we have totally abandoned Regards Kavouss 2015-09-02 12:17 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net>:
On 02/09/2015 03:26, Alan Greenberg wrote:
So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, I am not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition.
The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole Designator (CMSD).
Trying to revive a Designator Model, or any other model that cannot provide enforceability[*], is hardly the way to achieve support for transition. While I understand that you don't think enforceability is important, you surely must realise by now that it is considered essential by many.
Even if you succeeded in pushing CCWG into this change, all you would achieve would be to convince a sizable chunk of the community to campaign against transition.
Have you communicated to your colleagues in ALAC that you say were enthused by this supposed alternative that it would just provoke opposition to transition altogether? Or are they under the impression that this is something that is likely to win a broad consensus?
Malcolm.
[*] I'm simplifying slightly by mentioning only enforceability: having a Member also changes how the fiduciary duty works, which is also crucially important. Becky explained this much more articulately than I can.
-- 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
I share the same concerns expressed by Jordan, Malcolm and Kavouss. Matthew On 9/2/2015 11:49 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Alan, I wholeheartedly support Jordan We can not reconsider what we were about to finalize from our Paris Meeting and start a new round of discussion just 10 days before the expiry of Deadline. I do not think that what Alan proposed is simpler as there is bnot clear criteria to examine its simplicity. I am not in favor of the continuation of the discussion in this regard. As Keith Drazak told in Chat, CMSM is a compromise even if I did not agree to use the term "compromise "as it is the only way that all six?Seven powers could be exercised by the community Legal Advisers have comprehensively described the problem of Designator, unless it is accompanied by the UA approach that we have totally abandoned Regards Kavouss
2015-09-02 12:17 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net <mailto:malcolm@linx.net>>:
On 02/09/2015 03:26, Alan Greenberg wrote: > So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, I am > not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition. > > The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of > what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole > Designator (CMSD).
Trying to revive a Designator Model, or any other model that cannot provide enforceability[*], is hardly the way to achieve support for transition. While I understand that you don't think enforceability is important, you surely must realise by now that it is considered essential by many.
Even if you succeeded in pushing CCWG into this change, all you would achieve would be to convince a sizable chunk of the community to campaign against transition.
Have you communicated to your colleagues in ALAC that you say were enthused by this supposed alternative that it would just provoke opposition to transition altogether? Or are they under the impression that this is something that is likely to win a broad consensus?
Malcolm.
[*] I'm simplifying slightly by mentioning only enforceability: having a Member also changes how the fiduciary duty works, which is also crucially important. Becky explained this much more articulately than I can.
-- 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/
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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987
Agree with Jordan, Kavouss, Malcolm, and others. CMSM was not the ideal, but provides the bare minimum in terms of enforceability. I do not support re-opening the exploration of alternative models. Thanks- J. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 6:42 To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net<mailto:malcolm@linx.net>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation... I share the same concerns expressed by Jordan, Malcolm and Kavouss. Matthew On 9/2/2015 11:49 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Alan, I wholeheartedly support Jordan We can not reconsider what we were about to finalize from our Paris Meeting and start a new round of discussion just 10 days before the expiry of Deadline. I do not think that what Alan proposed is simpler as there is bnot clear criteria to examine its simplicity. I am not in favor of the continuation of the discussion in this regard. As Keith Drazak told in Chat, CMSM is a compromise even if I did not agree to use the term "compromise "as it is the only way that all six?Seven powers could be exercised by the community Legal Advisers have comprehensively described the problem of Designator, unless it is accompanied by the UA approach that we have totally abandoned Regards Kavouss 2015-09-02 12:17 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net<mailto:malcolm@linx.net>>: On 02/09/2015 03:26, Alan Greenberg wrote:
So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, I am not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition.
The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole Designator (CMSD).
Trying to revive a Designator Model, or any other model that cannot provide enforceability[*], is hardly the way to achieve support for transition. While I understand that you don't think enforceability is important, you surely must realise by now that it is considered essential by many. Even if you succeeded in pushing CCWG into this change, all you would achieve would be to convince a sizable chunk of the community to campaign against transition. Have you communicated to your colleagues in ALAC that you say were enthused by this supposed alternative that it would just provoke opposition to transition altogether? Or are they under the impression that this is something that is likely to win a broad consensus? Malcolm. [*] I'm simplifying slightly by mentioning only enforceability: having a Member also changes how the fiduciary duty works, which is also crucially important. Becky explained this much more articulately than I can. -- 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/ 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 -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987
+1 Steve DelBianco From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 9:10 AM To: Matthew Shears, Kavouss Arasteh, Malcolm Hutty, Mathieu Weill, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía, Thomas Rickert Cc: CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation... Agree with Jordan, Kavouss, Malcolm, and others. CMSM was not the ideal, but provides the bare minimum in terms of enforceability. I do not support re-opening the exploration of alternative models. Thanks— J. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 6:42 To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net<mailto:malcolm@linx.net>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation... I share the same concerns expressed by Jordan, Malcolm and Kavouss. Matthew On 9/2/2015 11:49 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Alan, I wholeheartedly support Jordan We can not reconsider what we were about to finalize from our Paris Meeting and start a new round of discussion just 10 days before the expiry of Deadline. I do not think that what Alan proposed is simpler as there is bnot clear criteria to examine its simplicity. I am not in favor of the continuation of the discussion in this regard. As Keith Drazak told in Chat, CMSM is a compromise even if I did not agree to use the term "compromise "as it is the only way that all six?Seven powers could be exercised by the community Legal Advisers have comprehensively described the problem of Designator, unless it is accompanied by the UA approach that we have totally abandoned Regards Kavouss 2015-09-02 12:17 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net<mailto:malcolm@linx.net>>: On 02/09/2015 03:26, Alan Greenberg wrote:
So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, I am not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition.
The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole Designator (CMSD).
Trying to revive a Designator Model, or any other model that cannot provide enforceability[*], is hardly the way to achieve support for transition. While I understand that you don't think enforceability is important, you surely must realise by now that it is considered essential by many. Even if you succeeded in pushing CCWG into this change, all you would achieve would be to convince a sizable chunk of the community to campaign against transition. Have you communicated to your colleagues in ALAC that you say were enthused by this supposed alternative that it would just provoke opposition to transition altogether? Or are they under the impression that this is something that is likely to win a broad consensus? Malcolm. [*] I'm simplifying slightly by mentioning only enforceability: having a Member also changes how the fiduciary duty works, which is also crucially important. Becky explained this much more articulately than I can. -- 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/ 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 -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987
me too. While we have some issues to deal with around the edges of the CMSM model, especially on the mater of its accountability to the wider community, to go back to the designator model which was always more complicated and never fit the requirement would be a mistake similar to throwing up our hands and giving up the effort. avri On 02-Sep-15 15:56, Steve DelBianco wrote:
+1 Steve DelBianco
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 9:10 AM To: Matthew Shears, Kavouss Arasteh, Malcolm Hutty, Mathieu Weill, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía, Thomas Rickert Cc: CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation...
Agree with Jordan, Kavouss, Malcolm, and others.
CMSM was not the ideal, but provides the bare minimum in terms of enforceability. I do not support re-opening the exploration of alternative models.
Thanks—
J.
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 6:42 To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net <mailto:malcolm@linx.net>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation...
I share the same concerns expressed by Jordan, Malcolm and Kavouss.
Matthew
On 9/2/2015 11:49 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Alan, I wholeheartedly support Jordan We can not reconsider what we were about to finalize from our Paris Meeting and start a new round of discussion just 10 days before the expiry of Deadline. I do not think that what Alan proposed is simpler as there is bnot clear criteria to examine its simplicity. I am not in favor of the continuation of the discussion in this regard. As Keith Drazak told in Chat, CMSM is a compromise even if I did not agree to use the term "compromise "as it is the only way that all six?Seven powers could be exercised by the community Legal Advisers have comprehensively described the problem of Designator, unless it is accompanied by the UA approach that we have totally abandoned Regards Kavouss
2015-09-02 12:17 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net <mailto:malcolm@linx.net>>:
On 02/09/2015 03:26, Alan Greenberg wrote: > So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, I am > not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition. > > The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of > what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole > Designator (CMSD).
Trying to revive a Designator Model, or any other model that cannot provide enforceability[*], is hardly the way to achieve support for transition. While I understand that you don't think enforceability is important, you surely must realise by now that it is considered essential by many.
Even if you succeeded in pushing CCWG into this change, all you would achieve would be to convince a sizable chunk of the community to campaign against transition.
Have you communicated to your colleagues in ALAC that you say were enthused by this supposed alternative that it would just provoke opposition to transition altogether? Or are they under the impression that this is something that is likely to win a broad consensus?
Malcolm.
[*] I'm simplifying slightly by mentioning only enforceability: having a Member also changes how the fiduciary duty works, which is also crucially important. Becky explained this much more articulately than I can.
-- 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987
_______________________________________________ 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
Agreed with the below, this is not a productive route, its not a viable route and its not conducive to having a viable proposal that will garner broad consensus. We have compromised enough, anything further will undermine this whole effort. -James On 2 Sep 2015, at 14:56, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: +1 Steve DelBianco From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 9:10 AM To: Matthew Shears, Kavouss Arasteh, Malcolm Hutty, Mathieu Weill, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía, Thomas Rickert Cc: CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation... Agree with Jordan, Kavouss, Malcolm, and others. CMSM was not the ideal, but provides the bare minimum in terms of enforceability. I do not support re-opening the exploration of alternative models. Thanks— J. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 6:42 To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net<mailto:malcolm@linx.net>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation... I share the same concerns expressed by Jordan, Malcolm and Kavouss. Matthew On 9/2/2015 11:49 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Alan, I wholeheartedly support Jordan We can not reconsider what we were about to finalize from our Paris Meeting and start a new round of discussion just 10 days before the expiry of Deadline. I do not think that what Alan proposed is simpler as there is bnot clear criteria to examine its simplicity. I am not in favor of the continuation of the discussion in this regard. As Keith Drazak told in Chat, CMSM is a compromise even if I did not agree to use the term "compromise "as it is the only way that all six?Seven powers could be exercised by the community Legal Advisers have comprehensively described the problem of Designator, unless it is accompanied by the UA approach that we have totally abandoned Regards Kavouss 2015-09-02 12:17 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net<mailto:malcolm@linx.net>>: On 02/09/2015 03:26, Alan Greenberg wrote:
So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, I am not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition.
The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole Designator (CMSD).
Trying to revive a Designator Model, or any other model that cannot provide enforceability[*], is hardly the way to achieve support for transition. While I understand that you don't think enforceability is important, you surely must realise by now that it is considered essential by many. Even if you succeeded in pushing CCWG into this change, all you would achieve would be to convince a sizable chunk of the community to campaign against transition. Have you communicated to your colleagues in ALAC that you say were enthused by this supposed alternative that it would just provoke opposition to transition altogether? Or are they under the impression that this is something that is likely to win a broad consensus? Malcolm. [*] I'm simplifying slightly by mentioning only enforceability: having a Member also changes how the fiduciary duty works, which is also crucially important. Becky explained this much more articulately than I can. -- 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/ 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 -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987 _______________________________________________ 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
Not sure i get the idea of "we have compromised enough" sorry if we did not take ICANN to a member organisation, what other level is left to take it to....J Cheers! On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:58 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Agreed with the below, this is not a productive route, its not a viable route and its not conducive to having a viable proposal that will garner broad consensus. We have compromised enough, anything further will undermine this whole effort.
-James
On 2 Sep 2015, at 14:56, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
+1 Steve DelBianco
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 9:10 AM To: Matthew Shears, Kavouss Arasteh, Malcolm Hutty, Mathieu Weill, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía, Thomas Rickert Cc: CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation...
Agree with Jordan, Kavouss, Malcolm, and others.
CMSM was not the ideal, but provides the bare minimum in terms of enforceability. I do not support re-opening the exploration of alternative models.
Thanks—
J.
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 6:42 To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>, Malcolm Hutty < malcolm@linx.net>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation...
I share the same concerns expressed by Jordan, Malcolm and Kavouss.
Matthew
On 9/2/2015 11:49 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Alan, I wholeheartedly support Jordan We can not reconsider what we were about to finalize from our Paris Meeting and start a new round of discussion just 10 days before the expiry of Deadline. I do not think that what Alan proposed is simpler as there is bnot clear criteria to examine its simplicity. I am not in favor of the continuation of the discussion in this regard. As Keith Drazak told in Chat, CMSM is a compromise even if I did not agree to use the term "compromise "as it is the only way that all six?Seven powers could be exercised by the community Legal Advisers have comprehensively described the problem of Designator, unless it is accompanied by the UA approach that we have totally abandoned Regards Kavouss
2015-09-02 12:17 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net>:
On 02/09/2015 03:26, Alan Greenberg wrote:
So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, I am not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition.
The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole Designator (CMSD).
Trying to revive a Designator Model, or any other model that cannot provide enforceability[*], is hardly the way to achieve support for transition. While I understand that you don't think enforceability is important, you surely must realise by now that it is considered essential by many.
Even if you succeeded in pushing CCWG into this change, all you would achieve would be to convince a sizable chunk of the community to campaign against transition.
Have you communicated to your colleagues in ALAC that you say were enthused by this supposed alternative that it would just provoke opposition to transition altogether? Or are they under the impression that this is something that is likely to win a broad consensus?
Malcolm.
[*] I'm simplifying slightly by mentioning only enforceability: having a Member also changes how the fiduciary duty works, which is also crucially important. Becky explained this much more articulately than I can.
-- 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 listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 (0)771 247 2987
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Kavouss, What Alan was speaking about is the sole designator model, not the designators model. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kavouss Arasteh Envoyé : mercredi 2 septembre 2015 11:49 À : Malcolm Hutty; Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert Cc : CCWG Accountability Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation... Dear Alan, I wholeheartedly support Jordan We can not reconsider what we were about to finalize from our Paris Meeting and start a new round of discussion just 10 days before the expiry of Deadline. I do not think that what Alan proposed is simpler as there is bnot clear criteria to examine its simplicity. I am not in favor of the continuation of the discussion in this regard. As Keith Drazak told in Chat, CMSM is a compromise even if I did not agree to use the term "compromise "as it is the only way that all six?Seven powers could be exercised by the community Legal Advisers have comprehensively described the problem of Designator, unless it is accompanied by the UA approach that we have totally abandoned Regards Kavouss 2015-09-02 12:17 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net>: On 02/09/2015 03:26, Alan Greenberg wrote:
So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, I am not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition.
The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole Designator (CMSD).
Trying to revive a Designator Model, or any other model that cannot provide enforceability[*], is hardly the way to achieve support for transition. While I understand that you don't think enforceability is important, you surely must realise by now that it is considered essential by many. Even if you succeeded in pushing CCWG into this change, all you would achieve would be to convince a sizable chunk of the community to campaign against transition. Have you communicated to your colleagues in ALAC that you say were enthused by this supposed alternative that it would just provoke opposition to transition altogether? Or are they under the impression that this is something that is likely to win a broad consensus? Malcolm. [*] I'm simplifying slightly by mentioning only enforceability: having a Member also changes how the fiduciary duty works, which is also crucially important. Becky explained this much more articulately than I can. -- 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/ 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 --- L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast. http://www.avast.com
participants (12)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
James Gannon -
James M. Bladel -
Jonathan Zuck -
Jordan Carter -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Malcolm Hutty -
Matthew Shears -
Seun Ojedeji -
Steve DelBianco -
Tijani BENJEMAA