[CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC
Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the CCWG-Accountability call on 30 December at 19:00 UTC. I will send to call details to the Notify list. Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statements of Interest 2. Membership Updates 3. Work Area Updates WA1 David Maher / Samantha Eisner WA2 Steve DelBianco WA3 Avri Doria WA4 Eric Brunner-Williams 4. Coordination between CWG and ICG 5. Expectations for the F2F 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks
Thank you Grace. Rudi Daniel ICT consulting 784 430 9235 On Dec 29, 2014 9:16 AM, "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the CCWG-Accountability call on 30 December at 19:00 UTC. I will send to call details to the Notify list.
*Proposed Agenda*: 1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statements of Interest 2. Membership Updates 3. Work Area Updates WA1 – David Maher / Samantha Eisner WA2 – Steve DelBianco WA3 – Avri Doria WA4 – Eric Brunner-Williams 4. Coordination between CWG and ICG 5. Expectations for the F2F 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
All As a follow up to our discussion on today's call and in reference to my point that OUR work on accountability is highly dependent on what the Board/ICANN will or will not agree to, may I propose that our Chairs send to the Board and the ICANN CEO a communication roughly along the following lines: The Cross-Community Working Group on accountability measures has been considering many accountability mechanisms to recommend concerning the prospective governance of ICANN. Many members and participants in the CCWG have tentatively concluded that the nature and scope of the CCWG's recommendations is dependent upon knowing whether or not the Board and ICANN will agree to certain fundamental limitations on Board authority. Accordingly, the CCWG requests direct input from the Board and/or CEO on the following question: "Will the Board agree, in principle, to accept accountability recommendations that a) restrict (either through Bylaw amendment or contract) the scope of ICANN activity exclusively to management and operation of the IANA function; and b) that provides an independent mechanism (whether through outside arbiter or internal review by a standing community group) by which alleged attempts by the Board/ICANN to exceed that narrow scope of authority may be adjudicated and, if necessary, restrained? If the Board is fundamentally willing to accept such limitations then remaining accountability mechanisms may be reasonably limited to proposals that relate to the successful implementation of the IANA function itself. If the Board and ICANN are, however, not willing to accept such limitations on their own authority then many members of the CCWG believe that accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG will need to be commensurately broadened." I do not, of course, care terribly much about the specific language we use. My goal, however, is to find a way to get Board input into our decision making at a point where it can significantly narrow (or substantially broadened) our field of consideration. Perhaps more to the point, simply asking the question creates information - if the Board is unable or unwilling to answer at all (or if it answers in the negative) that would, in and of itself, justify the community in seeking a broader accountability package. By contrast, if the Board answers affirmatively, then our task is much simpler - we need to reach consensus on the critical WS0 board control mechanisms and then add only the IANA function-related mechanisms we deem necessary. So . my proposal is simply that the Chairs of our WG find some way of both asking this question formally and getting a formal answer for us at the earliest practicable opportunity. I wish everyone a very healthy and happy new year. Warm regards Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 8:16 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Cc: Brenda Brewer Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the CCWG-Accountability call on 30 December at 19:00 UTC. I will send to call details to the Notify list. Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statements of Interest 2. Membership Updates 3. Work Area Updates WA1 - David Maher / Samantha Eisner WA2 - Steve DelBianco WA3 - Avri Doria WA4 - Eric Brunner-Williams 4. Coordination between CWG and ICG 5. Expectations for the F2F 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks
Is this within scope? el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Dec 31, 2014, at 00:39, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
All
As a follow up to our discussion on today’s call and in reference to my point that OUR work on accountability is highly dependent on what the Board/ICANN will or will not agree to, may I propose that our Chairs send to the Board and the ICANN CEO a communication roughly along the following lines:
The Cross-Community Working Group on accountability measures has been considering many accountability mechanisms to recommend concerning the prospective governance of ICANN. Many members and participants in the CCWG have tentatively concluded that the nature and scope of the CCWG’s recommendations is dependent upon knowing whether or not the Board and ICANN will agree to certain fundamental limitations on Board authority. Accordingly, the CCWG requests direct input from the Board and/or CEO on the following question:
“Will the Board agree, in principle, to accept accountability recommendations that a) restrict (either through Bylaw amendment or contract) the scope of ICANN activity exclusively to management and operation of the IANA function; and b) that provides an independent mechanism (whether through outside arbiter or internal review by a standing community group) by which alleged attempts by the Board/ICANN to exceed that narrow scope of authority may be adjudicated and, if necessary, restrained?
If the Board is fundamentally willing to accept such limitations then remaining accountability mechanisms may be reasonably limited to proposals that relate to the successful implementation of the IANA function itself. If the Board and ICANN are, however, not willing to accept such limitations on their own authority then many members of the CCWG believe that accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG will need to be commensurately broadened.”
I do not, of course, care terribly much about the specific language we use. My goal, however, is to find a way to get Board input into our decision making at a point where it can significantly narrow (or substantially broadened) our field of consideration.
Perhaps more to the point, simply asking the question creates information – if the Board is unable or unwilling to answer at all (or if it answers in the negative) that would, in and of itself, justify the community in seeking a broader accountability package. By contrast, if the Board answers affirmatively, then our task is much simpler – we need to reach consensus on the critical WS0 board control mechanisms and then add only the IANA function-related mechanisms we deem necessary.
So … my proposal is simply that the Chairs of our WG find some way of both asking this question formally and getting a formal answer for us at the earliest practicable opportunity.
I wish everyone a very healthy and happy new year.
Warm regards Paul
**NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 8:16 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Cc: Brenda Brewer Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC
Dear all,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the CCWG-Accountability call on 30 December at 19:00 UTC. I will send to call details to the Notify list.
Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statements of Interest 2. Membership Updates 3. Work Area Updates WA1 – David Maher / Samantha Eisner WA2 – Steve DelBianco WA3 – Avri Doria WA4 – Eric Brunner-Williams 4. Coordination between CWG and ICG 5. Expectations for the F2F 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I support Paul's proposal and consider it within the scope of our WG. David W. Maher Senior Vice President – Law & Policy Public Interest Registry 312 375 4849 From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 4:53 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Cc: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC Is this within scope? el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On Dec 31, 2014, at 00:39, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: All As a follow up to our discussion on today’s call and in reference to my point that OUR work on accountability is highly dependent on what the Board/ICANN will or will not agree to, may I propose that our Chairs send to the Board and the ICANN CEO a communication roughly along the following lines: The Cross-Community Working Group on accountability measures has been considering many accountability mechanisms to recommend concerning the prospective governance of ICANN. Many members and participants in the CCWG have tentatively concluded that the nature and scope of the CCWG’s recommendations is dependent upon knowing whether or not the Board and ICANN will agree to certain fundamental limitations on Board authority. Accordingly, the CCWG requests direct input from the Board and/or CEO on the following question: “Will the Board agree, in principle, to accept accountability recommendations that a) restrict (either through Bylaw amendment or contract) the scope of ICANN activity exclusively to management and operation of the IANA function; and b) that provides an independent mechanism (whether through outside arbiter or internal review by a standing community group) by which alleged attempts by the Board/ICANN to exceed that narrow scope of authority may be adjudicated and, if necessary, restrained? If the Board is fundamentally willing to accept such limitations then remaining accountability mechanisms may be reasonably limited to proposals that relate to the successful implementation of the IANA function itself. If the Board and ICANN are, however, not willing to accept such limitations on their own authority then many members of the CCWG believe that accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG will need to be commensurately broadened.” I do not, of course, care terribly much about the specific language we use. My goal, however, is to find a way to get Board input into our decision making at a point where it can significantly narrow (or substantially broadened) our field of consideration. Perhaps more to the point, simply asking the question creates information – if the Board is unable or unwilling to answer at all (or if it answers in the negative) that would, in and of itself, justify the community in seeking a broader accountability package. By contrast, if the Board answers affirmatively, then our task is much simpler – we need to reach consensus on the critical WS0 board control mechanisms and then add only the IANA function-related mechanisms we deem necessary. So … my proposal is simply that the Chairs of our WG find some way of both asking this question formally and getting a formal answer for us at the earliest practicable opportunity. I wish everyone a very healthy and happy new year. Warm regards Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 8:16 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Cc: Brenda Brewer Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the CCWG-Accountability call on 30 December at 19:00 UTC. I will send to call details to the Notify list. Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statements of Interest 2. Membership Updates 3. Work Area Updates WA1 – David Maher / Samantha Eisner WA2 – Steve DelBianco WA3 – Avri Doria WA4 – Eric Brunner-Williams 4. Coordination between CWG and ICG 5. Expectations for the F2F 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks _______________________________________________ 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
I support this proposal and believe having this dialogue with the board upfront will help us to know where to focus our work going forward. We can debate where to draw the line, but I think many would find the current wording the Articles of Incorporation to be so vague and broad that it hasn't provided any form of backstop in the past to mission-creep and so must be narrowed and clarified. Thanks, Robin On Dec 30, 2014, at 2:39 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
All
As a follow up to our discussion on today’s call and in reference to my point that OUR work on accountability is highly dependent on what the Board/ICANN will or will not agree to, may I propose that our Chairs send to the Board and the ICANN CEO a communication roughly along the following lines:
The Cross-Community Working Group on accountability measures has been considering many accountability mechanisms to recommend concerning the prospective governance of ICANN. Many members and participants in the CCWG have tentatively concluded that the nature and scope of the CCWG’s recommendations is dependent upon knowing whether or not the Board and ICANN will agree to certain fundamental limitations on Board authority. Accordingly, the CCWG requests direct input from the Board and/or CEO on the following question:
“Will the Board agree, in principle, to accept accountability recommendations that a) restrict (either through Bylaw amendment or contract) the scope of ICANN activity exclusively to management and operation of the IANA function; and b) that provides an independent mechanism (whether through outside arbiter or internal review by a standing community group) by which alleged attempts by the Board/ICANN to exceed that narrow scope of authority may be adjudicated and, if necessary, restrained?
If the Board is fundamentally willing to accept such limitations then remaining accountability mechanisms may be reasonably limited to proposals that relate to the successful implementation of the IANA function itself. If the Board and ICANN are, however, not willing to accept such limitations on their own authority then many members of the CCWG believe that accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG will need to be commensurately broadened.”
I do not, of course, care terribly much about the specific language we use. My goal, however, is to find a way to get Board input into our decision making at a point where it can significantly narrow (or substantially broadened) our field of consideration.
Perhaps more to the point, simply asking the question creates information – if the Board is unable or unwilling to answer at all (or if it answers in the negative) that would, in and of itself, justify the community in seeking a broader accountability package. By contrast, if the Board answers affirmatively, then our task is much simpler – we need to reach consensus on the critical WS0 board control mechanisms and then add only the IANA function-related mechanisms we deem necessary.
So … my proposal is simply that the Chairs of our WG find some way of both asking this question formally and getting a formal answer for us at the earliest practicable opportunity.
I wish everyone a very healthy and happy new year.
Warm regards Paul
**NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 8:16 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Cc: Brenda Brewer Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC
Dear all,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the CCWG-Accountability call on 30 December at 19:00 UTC. I will send to call details to the Notify list.
Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statements of Interest 2. Membership Updates 3. Work Area Updates WA1 – David Maher / Samantha Eisner WA2 – Steve DelBianco WA3 – Avri Doria WA4 – Eric Brunner-Williams 4. Coordination between CWG and ICG 5. Expectations for the F2F 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I think the primary problem with this approach is that accountability issues currently, not to mention in the hypothetical future have to do with more than scope creep. Everyone is up in arms about that issue in particular because of recent events but we need to think more broadly about what might happen in the future and come up with a true accountability mechanism, in WS1, and I content it will be DIFFICULT to get through the board but necessary. This isn't about what the board will accept, it's about what the community NEEDS for an accountable ICANN going forward. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:23 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig Cc: 'Brenda Brewer'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC I support this proposal and believe having this dialogue with the board upfront will help us to know where to focus our work going forward. We can debate where to draw the line, but I think many would find the current wording the Articles of Incorporation to be so vague and broad that it hasn't provided any form of backstop in the past to mission-creep and so must be narrowed and clarified. Thanks, Robin On Dec 30, 2014, at 2:39 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: All As a follow up to our discussion on today's call and in reference to my point that OUR work on accountability is highly dependent on what the Board/ICANN will or will not agree to, may I propose that our Chairs send to the Board and the ICANN CEO a communication roughly along the following lines: The Cross-Community Working Group on accountability measures has been considering many accountability mechanisms to recommend concerning the prospective governance of ICANN. Many members and participants in the CCWG have tentatively concluded that the nature and scope of the CCWG's recommendations is dependent upon knowing whether or not the Board and ICANN will agree to certain fundamental limitations on Board authority. Accordingly, the CCWG requests direct input from the Board and/or CEO on the following question: "Will the Board agree, in principle, to accept accountability recommendations that a) restrict (either through Bylaw amendment or contract) the scope of ICANN activity exclusively to management and operation of the IANA function; and b) that provides an independent mechanism (whether through outside arbiter or internal review by a standing community group) by which alleged attempts by the Board/ICANN to exceed that narrow scope of authority may be adjudicated and, if necessary, restrained? If the Board is fundamentally willing to accept such limitations then remaining accountability mechanisms may be reasonably limited to proposals that relate to the successful implementation of the IANA function itself. If the Board and ICANN are, however, not willing to accept such limitations on their own authority then many members of the CCWG believe that accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG will need to be commensurately broadened." I do not, of course, care terribly much about the specific language we use. My goal, however, is to find a way to get Board input into our decision making at a point where it can significantly narrow (or substantially broadened) our field of consideration. Perhaps more to the point, simply asking the question creates information - if the Board is unable or unwilling to answer at all (or if it answers in the negative) that would, in and of itself, justify the community in seeking a broader accountability package. By contrast, if the Board answers affirmatively, then our task is much simpler - we need to reach consensus on the critical WS0 board control mechanisms and then add only the IANA function-related mechanisms we deem necessary. So ... my proposal is simply that the Chairs of our WG find some way of both asking this question formally and getting a formal answer for us at the earliest practicable opportunity. I wish everyone a very healthy and happy new year. Warm regards Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 8:16 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Cc: Brenda Brewer Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the CCWG-Accountability call on 30 December at 19:00 UTC. I will send to call details to the Notify list. Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statements of Interest 2. Membership Updates 3. Work Area Updates WA1 - David Maher / Samantha Eisner WA2 - Steve DelBianco WA3 - Avri Doria WA4 - Eric Brunner-Williams 4. Coordination between CWG and ICG 5. Expectations for the F2F 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks _______________________________________________ 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 all, Could I just throw an observation about the current setup in here, having watched ICANN both externally and internally (both community and corporation) for more than a decade. We are taking the presumption that the Board is not only the group that ultimately makes the decisions but also the group that keeps the corporation in check on more everyday, operational matters. I would argue that this approach consistently fails because the Board cannot be expected to see and follow everything. It is also ends up concentrating too much power and reliance on that power in too few hands. It also provides opportunities for the Board to make bad decisions (like a 10-year lease on an unused building, or a investment strategy tied too closely to a failing stock market, or wage packages that are far too high, or expense accounts with no apparent limits, or an internet governance strategy that upsets the entire technical community, and so on). Rather than focus solely on how to get the Board to listen more closely before making a decision (which is of course vital), we should also consider how to allow the community to assist in the running of ICANN. Rather than rely on the Board of a Corporation to do everything. We should try to break down some of the Them vs Us attitude that exists within the corporation, which is behind many of the problems. One of many ways to do this would be an improved information release policy with a staff-and-community committee in charge. In fact, pulling staff more into the community by having joint committees (rather than have staff as secretaries) to solve corporate-specific issues should help break down barriers and build trust. Opening up the current Board committees to community members would also help enormously. There is no real reason why it should only be staff and Board on these committees (I have sat on or in many of them and community members would have been useful many times). There are lots of other possibilities but you get my general point. Let's open things up, ICANN is no longer under existential threat. It's time to reflect that and help it grow into what it should be. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
I think the primary problem with this approach is that accountability issues currently, not to mention in the hypothetical future have to do with more than scope creep. Everyone is up in arms about that issue in particular because of recent events but we need to think more broadly about what might happen in the future and come up with a true accountability mechanism, in WS1, and I content it will be DIFFICULT to get through the board but necessary. This isn't about what the board will accept, it's about what the community NEEDS for an accountable ICANN going forward. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:23 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig Cc: 'Brenda Brewer'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC I support this proposal and believe having this dialogue with the board upfront will help us to know where to focus our work going forward. We can debate where to draw the line, but I think many would find the current wording the Articles of Incorporation to be so vague and broad that it hasn't provided any form of backstop in the past to mission-creep and so must be narrowed and clarified. Thanks, Robin On Dec 30, 2014, at 2:39 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: All As a follow up to our discussion on today's call and in reference to my point that OUR work on accountability is highly dependent on what the Board/ICANN will or will not agree to, may I propose that our Chairs send to the Board and the ICANN CEO a communication roughly along the following lines: The Cross-Community Working Group on accountability measures has been considering many accountability mechanisms to recommend concerning the prospective governance of ICANN. Many members and participants in the CCWG have tentatively concluded that the nature and scope of the CCWG's recommendations is dependent upon knowing whether or not the Board and ICANN will agree to certain fundamental limitations on Board authority. Accordingly, the CCWG requests direct input from the Board and/or CEO on the following question: "Will the Board agree, in principle, to accept accountability recommendations that a) restrict (either through Bylaw amendment or contract) the scope of ICANN activity exclusively to management and operation of the IANA function; and b) that provides an independent mechanism (whether through outside arbiter or internal review by a standing community group) by which alleged attempts by the Board/ICANN to exceed that narrow scope of authority may be adjudicated and, if necessary, restrained? If the Board is fundamentally willing to accept such limitations then remaining accountability mechanisms may be reasonably limited to proposals that relate to the successful implementation of the IANA function itself. If the Board and ICANN are, however, not willing to accept such limitations on their own authority then many members of the CCWG believe that accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG will need to be commensurately broadened." I do not, of course, care terribly much about the specific language we use. My goal, however, is to find a way to get Board input into our decision making at a point where it can significantly narrow (or substantially broadened) our field of consideration. Perhaps more to the point, simply asking the question creates information - if the Board is unable or unwilling to answer at all (or if it answers in the negative) that would, in and of itself, justify the community in seeking a broader accountability package. By contrast, if the Board answers affirmatively, then our task is much simpler - we need to reach consensus on the critical WS0 board control mechanisms and then add only the IANA function-related mechanisms we deem necessary. So ... my proposal is simply that the Chairs of our WG find some way of both asking this question formally and getting a formal answer for us at the earliest practicable opportunity. I wish everyone a very healthy and happy new year. Warm regards Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 8:16 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Cc: Brenda Brewer Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the CCWG-Accountability call on 30 December at 19:00 UTC. I will send to call details to the Notify list. Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statements of Interest 2. Membership Updates 3. Work Area Updates WA1 - David Maher / Samantha Eisner WA2 - Steve DelBianco WA3 - Avri Doria WA4 - Eric Brunner-Williams 4. Coordination between CWG and ICG 5. Expectations for the F2F 6. AOB 7. Closing Remarks _______________________________________________ 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
Please explain about your reference to a ten year lease on an unused building What building Where building Why isn't it used How much is the monthly rent Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 4, 2015, at 9:30 AM, "Kieren McCarthy" <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
Could I just throw an observation about the current setup in here, having watched ICANN both externally and internally (both community and corporation) for more than a decade.
We are taking the presumption that the Board is not only the group that ultimately makes the decisions but also the group that keeps the corporation in check on more everyday, operational matters.
I would argue that this approach consistently fails because the Board cannot be expected to see and follow everything. It is also ends up concentrating too much power and reliance on that power in too few hands.
It also provides opportunities for the Board to make bad decisions (like a 10-year lease on an unused building, or a investment strategy tied too closely to a failing stock market, or wage packages that are far too high, or expense accounts with no apparent limits, or an internet governance strategy that upsets the entire technical community, and so on).
Rather than focus solely on how to get the Board to listen more closely before making a decision (which is of course vital), we should also consider how to allow the community to assist in the running of ICANN. Rather than rely on the Board of a Corporation to do everything.
We should try to break down some of the Them vs Us attitude that exists within the corporation, which is behind many of the problems.
One of many ways to do this would be an improved information release policy with a staff-and-community committee in charge.
In fact, pulling staff more into the community by having joint committees (rather than have staff as secretaries) to solve corporate-specific issues should help break down barriers and build trust.
Opening up the current Board committees to community members would also help enormously. There is no real reason why it should only be staff and Board on these committees (I have sat on or in many of them and community members would have been useful many times).
There are lots of other possibilities but you get my general point. Let's open things up, ICANN is no longer under existential threat. It's time to reflect that and help it grow into what it should be.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote: I think the primary problem with this approach is that accountability issues currently, not to mention in the hypothetical future have to do with more than scope creep. Everyone is up in arms about that issue in particular because of recent events but we need to think more broadly about what might happen in the future and come up with a true accountability mechanism, in WS1, and I content it will be DIFFICULT to get through the board but necessary. This isn’t about what the board will accept, it’s about what the community NEEDS for an accountable ICANN going forward.
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:23 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig Cc: 'Brenda Brewer'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC
I support this proposal and believe having this dialogue with the board upfront will help us to know where to focus our work going forward.
We can debate where to draw the line, but I think many would find the current wording the Articles of Incorporation to be so vague and broad that it hasn't provided any form of backstop in the past to mission-creep and so must be narrowed and clarified.
Thanks,
Robin
On Dec 30, 2014, at 2:39 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
All
As a follow up to our discussion on today’s call and in reference to my point that OUR work on accountability is highly dependent on what the Board/ICANN will or will not agree to, may I propose that our Chairs send to the Board and the ICANN CEO a communication roughly along the following lines:
The Cross-Community Working Group on accountability measures has been considering many accountability mechanisms to recommend concerning the prospective governance of ICANN. Many members and participants in the CCWG have tentatively concluded that the nature and scope of the CCWG’s recommendations is dependent upon knowing whether or not the Board and ICANN will agree to certain fundamental limitations on Board authority. Accordingly, the CCWG requests direct input from the Board and/or CEO on the following question:
“Will the Board agree, in principle, to accept accountability recommendations that a) restrict (either through Bylaw amendment or contract) the scope of ICANN activity exclusively to management and operation of the IANA function; and b) that provides an independent mechanism (whether through outside arbiter or internal review by a standing community group) by which alleged attempts by the Board/ICANN to exceed that narrow scope of authority may be adjudicated and, if necessary, restrained?
If the Board is fundamentally willing to accept such limitations then remaining accountability mechanisms may be reasonably limited to proposals that relate to the successful implementation of the IANA function itself. If the Board and ICANN are, however, not willing to accept such limitations on their own authority then many members of the CCWG believe that accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG will need to be commensurately broadened.”
I do not, of course, care terribly much about the specific language we use. My goal, however, is to find a way to get Board input into our decision making at a point where it can significantly narrow (or substantially broadened) our field of consideration.
Perhaps more to the point, simply asking the question creates information – if the Board is unable or unwilling to answer at all (or if it answers in the negative) that would, in and of itself, justify the community in seeking a broader accountability package. By contrast, if the Board answers affirmatively, then our task is much simpler – we need to reach consensus on the critical WS0 board control mechanisms and then add only the IANA function-related mechanisms we deem necessary.
So … my proposal is simply that the Chairs of our WG find some way of both asking this question formally and getting a formal answer for us at the earliest practicable opportunity.
I wish everyone a very healthy and happy new year.
Warm regards
Paul
**NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key
From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 8:16 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Cc: Brenda Brewer Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC
Dear all,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the CCWG-Accountability call on 30 December at 19:00 UTC. I will send to call details to the Notify list.
Proposed Agenda:
1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statements of Interest
2. Membership Updates
3. Work Area Updates
WA1 – David Maher / Samantha Eisner
WA2 – Steve DelBianco
WA3 – Avri Doria
WA4 – Eric Brunner-Williams
4. Coordination between CWG and ICG
5. Expectations for the F2F
6. AOB
7. Closing Remarks
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear co-chairs, maybe we should introduce some required reading prior to allowing posting to the list. el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jan 4, 2015, at 17:31, Carrie <carriedev@gmail.com> wrote:
Please explain about your reference to a ten year lease on an unused building
What building Where building Why isn't it used How much is the monthly rent
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 4, 2015, at 9:30 AM, "Kieren McCarthy" <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
Could I just throw an observation about the current setup in here, having watched ICANN both externally and internally (both community and corporation) for more than a decade.
We are taking the presumption that the Board is not only the group that ultimately makes the decisions but also the group that keeps the corporation in check on more everyday, operational matters.
I would argue that this approach consistently fails because the Board cannot be expected to see and follow everything. It is also ends up concentrating too much power and reliance on that power in too few hands.
It also provides opportunities for the Board to make bad decisions (like a 10-year lease on an unused building, or a investment strategy tied too closely to a failing stock market, or wage packages that are far too high, or expense accounts with no apparent limits, or an internet governance strategy that upsets the entire technical community, and so on).
Rather than focus solely on how to get the Board to listen more closely before making a decision (which is of course vital), we should also consider how to allow the community to assist in the running of ICANN. Rather than rely on the Board of a Corporation to do everything.
We should try to break down some of the Them vs Us attitude that exists within the corporation, which is behind many of the problems.
One of many ways to do this would be an improved information release policy with a staff-and-community committee in charge.
In fact, pulling staff more into the community by having joint committees (rather than have staff as secretaries) to solve corporate-specific issues should help break down barriers and build trust.
Opening up the current Board committees to community members would also help enormously. There is no real reason why it should only be staff and Board on these committees (I have sat on or in many of them and community members would have been useful many times).
There are lots of other possibilities but you get my general point. Let's open things up, ICANN is no longer under existential threat. It's time to reflect that and help it grow into what it should be.
Kieren
- [sent through phone] [...]
+1 Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone
El ene 4, 2015, a las 10:13 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Dear co-chairs,
maybe we should introduce some required reading prior to allowing posting to the list.
el
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jan 4, 2015, at 17:31, Carrie <carriedev@gmail.com> wrote:
Please explain about your reference to a ten year lease on an unused building
What building Where building Why isn't it used How much is the monthly rent
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 4, 2015, at 9:30 AM, "Kieren McCarthy" <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
Could I just throw an observation about the current setup in here, having watched ICANN both externally and internally (both community and corporation) for more than a decade.
We are taking the presumption that the Board is not only the group that ultimately makes the decisions but also the group that keeps the corporation in check on more everyday, operational matters.
I would argue that this approach consistently fails because the Board cannot be expected to see and follow everything. It is also ends up concentrating too much power and reliance on that power in too few hands.
It also provides opportunities for the Board to make bad decisions (like a 10-year lease on an unused building, or a investment strategy tied too closely to a failing stock market, or wage packages that are far too high, or expense accounts with no apparent limits, or an internet governance strategy that upsets the entire technical community, and so on).
Rather than focus solely on how to get the Board to listen more closely before making a decision (which is of course vital), we should also consider how to allow the community to assist in the running of ICANN. Rather than rely on the Board of a Corporation to do everything.
We should try to break down some of the Them vs Us attitude that exists within the corporation, which is behind many of the problems.
One of many ways to do this would be an improved information release policy with a staff-and-community committee in charge.
In fact, pulling staff more into the community by having joint committees (rather than have staff as secretaries) to solve corporate-specific issues should help break down barriers and build trust.
Opening up the current Board committees to community members would also help enormously. There is no real reason why it should only be staff and Board on these committees (I have sat on or in many of them and community members would have been useful many times).
There are lots of other possibilities but you get my general point. Let's open things up, ICANN is no longer under existential threat. It's time to reflect that and help it grow into what it should be.
Kieren
- [sent through phone] [...]
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Carlos Raúl G. *Sent:* יום א 04 ינואר 2015 18:34 *To:* Dr Eberhard W Lisse *Cc:* <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC +1 Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone El ene 4, 2015, a las 10:13 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió: Dear co-chairs, maybe we should introduce some required reading prior to allowing posting to the list. el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On Jan 4, 2015, at 17:31, Carrie <carriedev@gmail.com> wrote: Please explain about your reference to a ten year lease on an unused building What building Where building Why isn't it used How much is the monthly rent Sent from my iPhone On Jan 4, 2015, at 9:30 AM, "Kieren McCarthy" <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote: Hello all, Could I just throw an observation about the current setup in here, having watched ICANN both externally and internally (both community and corporation) for more than a decade. We are taking the presumption that the Board is not only the group that ultimately makes the decisions but also the group that keeps the corporation in check on more everyday, operational matters. I would argue that this approach consistently fails because the Board cannot be expected to see and follow everything. It is also ends up concentrating too much power and reliance on that power in too few hands. It also provides opportunities for the Board to make bad decisions (like a 10-year lease on an unused building, or a investment strategy tied too closely to a failing stock market, or wage packages that are far too high, or expense accounts with no apparent limits, or an internet governance strategy that upsets the entire technical community, and so on). Rather than focus solely on how to get the Board to listen more closely before making a decision (which is of course vital), we should also consider how to allow the community to assist in the running of ICANN. Rather than rely on the Board of a Corporation to do everything. We should try to break down some of the Them vs Us attitude that exists within the corporation, which is behind many of the problems. One of many ways to do this would be an improved information release policy with a staff-and-community committee in charge. In fact, pulling staff more into the community by having joint committees (rather than have staff as secretaries) to solve corporate-specific issues should help break down barriers and build trust. Opening up the current Board committees to community members would also help enormously. There is no real reason why it should only be staff and Board on these committees (I have sat on or in many of them and community members would have been useful many times). There are lots of other possibilities but you get my general point. Let's open things up, ICANN is no longer under existential threat. It's time to reflect that and help it grow into what it should be. Kieren - [sent through phone] [...] _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Do you have a blueprint of the new ICANN(s) in mind, or just more and larger committees meeting more often? What about a structural and/or organizational separation between policy, compliance and straight business operations as some US senators have already suggested? Any roadmap in mind? After the IANA transition? Splitting the board in the meantime between indirect (NomCom) and direct representatives for some of functional roles as per above? Just discussing for the sake of it is a nice exercise. But we need a new vision of the whole setup if we want to change it so thoroughly. Happy new year Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone
El ene 4, 2015, a las 8:30 AM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> escribió:
Hello all,
Could I just throw an observation about the current setup in here, having watched ICANN both externally and internally (both community and corporation) for more than a decade.
We are taking the presumption that the Board is not only the group that ultimately makes the decisions but also the group that keeps the corporation in check on more everyday, operational matters.
I would argue that this approach consistently fails because the Board cannot be expected to see and follow everything. It is also ends up concentrating too much power and reliance on that power in too few hands.
It also provides opportunities for the Board to make bad decisions (like a 10-year lease on an unused building, or a investment strategy tied too closely to a failing stock market, or wage packages that are far too high, or expense accounts with no apparent limits, or an internet governance strategy that upsets the entire technical community, and so on).
Rather than focus solely on how to get the Board to listen more closely before making a decision (which is of course vital), we should also consider how to allow the community to assist in the running of ICANN. Rather than rely on the Board of a Corporation to do everything.
We should try to break down some of the Them vs Us attitude that exists within the corporation, which is behind many of the problems.
One of many ways to do this would be an improved information release policy with a staff-and-community committee in charge.
In fact, pulling staff more into the community by having joint committees (rather than have staff as secretaries) to solve corporate-specific issues should help break down barriers and build trust.
Opening up the current Board committees to community members would also help enormously. There is no real reason why it should only be staff and Board on these committees (I have sat on or in many of them and community members would have been useful many times).
There are lots of other possibilities but you get my general point. Let's open things up, ICANN is no longer under existential threat. It's time to reflect that and help it grow into what it should be.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote: I think the primary problem with this approach is that accountability issues currently, not to mention in the hypothetical future have to do with more than scope creep. Everyone is up in arms about that issue in particular because of recent events but we need to think more broadly about what might happen in the future and come up with a true accountability mechanism, in WS1, and I content it will be DIFFICULT to get through the board but necessary. This isn’t about what the board will accept, it’s about what the community NEEDS for an accountable ICANN going forward.
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:23 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig Cc: 'Brenda Brewer'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC
I support this proposal and believe having this dialogue with the board upfront will help us to know where to focus our work going forward.
We can debate where to draw the line, but I think many would find the current wording the Articles of Incorporation to be so vague and broad that it hasn't provided any form of backstop in the past to mission-creep and so must be narrowed and clarified.
Thanks,
Robin
On Dec 30, 2014, at 2:39 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
All
As a follow up to our discussion on today’s call and in reference to my point that OUR work on accountability is highly dependent on what the Board/ICANN will or will not agree to, may I propose that our Chairs send to the Board and the ICANN CEO a communication roughly along the following lines:
The Cross-Community Working Group on accountability measures has been considering many accountability mechanisms to recommend concerning the prospective governance of ICANN. Many members and participants in the CCWG have tentatively concluded that the nature and scope of the CCWG’s recommendations is dependent upon knowing whether or not the Board and ICANN will agree to certain fundamental limitations on Board authority. Accordingly, the CCWG requests direct input from the Board and/or CEO on the following question:
“Will the Board agree, in principle, to accept accountability recommendations that a) restrict (either through Bylaw amendment or contract) the scope of ICANN activity exclusively to management and operation of the IANA function; and b) that provides an independent mechanism (whether through outside arbiter or internal review by a standing community group) by which alleged attempts by the Board/ICANN to exceed that narrow scope of authority may be adjudicated and, if necessary, restrained?
If the Board is fundamentally willing to accept such limitations then remaining accountability mechanisms may be reasonably limited to proposals that relate to the successful implementation of the IANA function itself. If the Board and ICANN are, however, not willing to accept such limitations on their own authority then many members of the CCWG believe that accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG will need to be commensurately broadened.”
I do not, of course, care terribly much about the specific language we use. My goal, however, is to find a way to get Board input into our decision making at a point where it can significantly narrow (or substantially broadened) our field of consideration.
Perhaps more to the point, simply asking the question creates information – if the Board is unable or unwilling to answer at all (or if it answers in the negative) that would, in and of itself, justify the community in seeking a broader accountability package. By contrast, if the Board answers affirmatively, then our task is much simpler – we need to reach consensus on the critical WS0 board control mechanisms and then add only the IANA function-related mechanisms we deem necessary.
So … my proposal is simply that the Chairs of our WG find some way of both asking this question formally and getting a formal answer for us at the earliest practicable opportunity.
I wish everyone a very healthy and happy new year.
Warm regards
Paul
**NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key
From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 8:16 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Cc: Brenda Brewer Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC
Dear all,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the CCWG-Accountability call on 30 December at 19:00 UTC. I will send to call details to the Notify list.
Proposed Agenda:
1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statements of Interest
2. Membership Updates
3. Work Area Updates
WA1 – David Maher / Samantha Eisner
WA2 – Steve DelBianco
WA3 – Avri Doria
WA4 – Eric Brunner-Williams
4. Coordination between CWG and ICG
5. Expectations for the F2F
6. AOB
7. Closing Remarks
_______________________________________________ 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
Assisting ccwg4 ..and want to +1 Kieren‘s general comments as there is potential for minimizing friction between ICANN‘s internal corporate culture and it‘s ability to act in the public interest. If you look at civil society as an ecosystem, Increasingly, I see multistakeholderism as an important departure from our generally accepted values of commerce and competition. So just maybe, we have an opportunity to re-define our responsibilities as Internet citizens grounded in rights that are universal and not restrictive, where the rate of return becomes rooted in cooperation and commitment and possibly as a trade off against the present status quo of production costs or profit. RD
+1 Kieren +1 Rudolph, Opening things up might just be what the community, staff and board need. Beran Gillen On Jan 4, 2015, at 4:57 PM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
Assisting ccwg4 ..and want to +1 Kieren‘s general comments as there is potential for minimizing friction between ICANN‘s internal corporate culture and it‘s ability to act in the public interest. If you look at civil society as an ecosystem, Increasingly, I see multistakeholderism as an important departure from our generally accepted values of commerce and competition. So just maybe, we have an opportunity to re-define our responsibilities as Internet citizens grounded in rights that are universal and not restrictive, where the rate of return becomes rooted in cooperation and commitment and possibly as a trade off against the present status quo of production costs or profit. RD
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 It would bridge the gap and fast track actions over general issues and policy implementation. -Akinbo On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Beran Gillen - Yahoo! < berangillen@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 Kieren +1 Rudolph,
Opening things up might just be what the community, staff and board need.
Beran Gillen On Jan 4, 2015, at 4:57 PM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
Assisting ccwg4 ..and want to +1 Kieren‘s general comments as there is potential for minimizing friction between ICANN‘s internal corporate culture and it‘s ability to act in the public interest. If you look at civil society as an ecosystem, Increasingly, I see multistakeholderism as an important departure from our generally accepted values of commerce and competition. So just maybe, we have an opportunity to re-define our responsibilities as Internet citizens grounded in rights that are universal and not restrictive, where the rate of return becomes rooted in cooperation and commitment and possibly as a trade off against the present status quo of production costs or profit. RD _______________________________________________ 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
-- *Evang. Akinbo A. A. Cornerstone, Nigeria.* +2348064464545, +2348089118151 | 2BAC511D. www.akinbo.ng *Member, Executive Board of Directors*, Nigeria Internet Registration Association (NiRA) www.nira.org.ng | akinbo@nira.org.ng <akinbo@yips.org.ng> @niraworks *Acting Chief Operating Officer,* DNS Africa Magazine www.dnsafrica.org | akinbo@dnsafrica.org @dnsafrica *National Convener,* Nigerian Youth Coalition on Internet Governance (NG-YCIG) www.ycig.org.ng <http://www.nira.org.ng/> *President,* Young Internet Professionals (YiPS) www.yips.gnbo.com.ng <http://wwwyips.org.ng/> | akinbo@yips.org.ng *The RedHub.* 12, Afonka Odebunmi Street, Lagos State. http://www.theredhub.org/ *National Focal Point ( Nigeria ) 2009-2011.* Global Youth Coalition on HIV/AIDS (a program of TakingITGlobal) www.youthaidscoalition.org www.takingitglobal.com www.iaids.org About me: http://profiles.tigweb.org/pscornerstone
On a lighter note, I thought to share, first off New Years greetings to all and something I penned. We do sometimes need to smile, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/twas-copyright-theft-victims-revenge-night-be... Sincerely Carrie Devorah Founder THE CENTER FOR COPYRIGHT INTEGRITY www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
Could I just throw an observation about the current setup in here, having watched ICANN both externally and internally (both community and corporation) for more than a decade.
We are taking the presumption that the Board is not only the group that ultimately makes the decisions but also the group that keeps the corporation in check on more everyday, operational matters.
I would argue that this approach consistently fails because the Board cannot be expected to see and follow everything. It is also ends up concentrating too much power and reliance on that power in too few hands.
It also provides opportunities for the Board to make bad decisions (like a 10-year lease on an unused building, or a investment strategy tied too closely to a failing stock market, or wage packages that are far too high, or expense accounts with no apparent limits, or an internet governance strategy that upsets the entire technical community, and so on).
Rather than focus solely on how to get the Board to listen more closely before making a decision (which is of course vital), we should also consider how to allow the community to assist in the running of ICANN. Rather than rely on the Board of a Corporation to do everything.
We should try to break down some of the Them vs Us attitude that exists within the corporation, which is behind many of the problems.
One of many ways to do this would be an improved information release policy with a staff-and-community committee in charge.
In fact, pulling staff more into the community by having joint committees (rather than have staff as secretaries) to solve corporate-specific issues should help break down barriers and build trust.
Opening up the current Board committees to community members would also help enormously. There is no real reason why it should only be staff and Board on these committees (I have sat on or in many of them and community members would have been useful many times).
There are lots of other possibilities but you get my general point. Let's open things up, ICANN is no longer under existential threat. It's time to reflect that and help it grow into what it should be.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
I think the primary problem with this approach is that accountability issues *currently*, not to mention in the hypothetical future have to do with more than scope creep. Everyone is up in arms about that issue in particular because of recent events but we need to think more broadly about what might happen in the future and come up with a true accountability mechanism, in WS1, and I content it will be DIFFICULT to get through the board but necessary. This isn’t about what the board will accept, it’s about what the community NEEDS for an accountable ICANN going forward.
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Robin Gross *Sent:* Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:23 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig *Cc:* 'Brenda Brewer'; 'Accountability Cross Community' *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC
I support this proposal and believe having this dialogue with the board upfront will help us to know where to focus our work going forward.
We can debate where to draw the line, but I think many would find the current wording the Articles of Incorporation to be so vague and broad that it hasn't provided any form of backstop in the past to mission-creep and so must be narrowed and clarified.
Thanks,
Robin
On Dec 30, 2014, at 2:39 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
All
As a follow up to our discussion on today’s call and in reference to my point that OUR work on accountability is highly dependent on what the Board/ICANN will or will not agree to, may I propose that our Chairs send to the Board and the ICANN CEO a communication roughly along the following lines:
The Cross-Community Working Group on accountability measures has been considering many accountability mechanisms to recommend concerning the prospective governance of ICANN. Many members and participants in the CCWG have tentatively concluded that the nature and scope of the CCWG’s recommendations is dependent upon knowing whether or not the Board and ICANN will agree to certain fundamental limitations on Board authority. Accordingly, the CCWG requests direct input from the Board and/or CEO on the following question:
“Will the Board agree, in principle, to accept accountability recommendations that a) restrict (either through Bylaw amendment or contract) the scope of ICANN activity exclusively to management and operation of the IANA function; and b) that provides an independent mechanism (whether through outside arbiter or internal review by a standing community group) by which alleged attempts by the Board/ICANN to exceed that narrow scope of authority may be adjudicated and, if necessary, restrained?
If the Board is fundamentally willing to accept such limitations then remaining accountability mechanisms may be reasonably limited to proposals that relate to the successful implementation of the IANA function itself. If the Board and ICANN are, however, not willing to accept such limitations on their own authority then many members of the CCWG believe that accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG will need to be commensurately broadened.”
I do not, of course, care terribly much about the specific language we use. My goal, however, is to find a way to get Board input into our decision making at a point where it can significantly narrow (or substantially broadened) our field of consideration.
Perhaps more to the point, simply asking the question creates information – if the Board is unable or unwilling to answer at all (or if it answers in the negative) that would, in and of itself, justify the community in seeking a broader accountability package. By contrast, if the Board answers affirmatively, then our task is much simpler – we need to reach consensus on the critical WS0 board control mechanisms and then add only the IANA function-related mechanisms we deem necessary.
So … my proposal is simply that the Chairs of our WG find some way of both asking this question formally and getting a formal answer for us at the earliest practicable opportunity.
I wish everyone a very healthy and happy new year.
Warm regards
Paul
***NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ****
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
*From:* Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>] *Sent:* Monday, December 29, 2014 8:16 AM *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Cc:* Brenda Brewer *Subject:* [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC
Dear all,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the CCWG-Accountability call on 30 December at 19:00 UTC. I will send to call details to the Notify list.
*Proposed Agenda*:
1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statements of Interest
2. Membership Updates
3. Work Area Updates
WA1 – David Maher / Samantha Eisner
WA2 – Steve DelBianco
WA3 – Avri Doria
WA4 – Eric Brunner-Williams
4. Coordination between CWG and ICG
5. Expectations for the F2F
6. AOB
7. Closing Remarks
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Sincerely CARRIE Devorah 562 688 2883 DISCLAIMER : With the continuing crossing and interfacing of platforms both on & off line both with & without our knowledge nor approval to note nothing sent over the Internet anymore is ever private nor should be presumed to be so. If it is that much of a secret, say nothing. If you must? Take a lesson from our military- hand write the note, chew then swallow
Hi Paul, I think writing to board to know how it will treat the WG outcome especially when some of it's implementations will require by-law modifications that further involve the ICANN community in decision making process may be useful. Secondly, there are common items of interest between CCWG and CWG so I think we may learn some hint from board's recent participation in the CWG Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 30 Dec 2014 23:40, "Paul Rosenzweig" < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
All
As a follow up to our discussion on today’s call and in reference to my point that OUR work on accountability is highly dependent on what the Board/ICANN will or will not agree to, may I propose that our Chairs send to the Board and the ICANN CEO a communication roughly along the following lines:
The Cross-Community Working Group on accountability measures has been considering many accountability mechanisms to recommend concerning the prospective governance of ICANN. Many members and participants in the CCWG have tentatively concluded that the nature and scope of the CCWG’s recommendations is dependent upon knowing whether or not the Board and ICANN will agree to certain fundamental limitations on Board authority. Accordingly, the CCWG requests direct input from the Board and/or CEO on the following question:
“Will the Board agree, in principle, to accept accountability recommendations that a) restrict (either through Bylaw amendment or contract) the scope of ICANN activity exclusively to management and operation of the IANA function; and b) that provides an independent mechanism (whether through outside arbiter or internal review by a standing community group) by which alleged attempts by the Board/ICANN to exceed that narrow scope of authority may be adjudicated and, if necessary, restrained?
If the Board is fundamentally willing to accept such limitations then remaining accountability mechanisms may be reasonably limited to proposals that relate to the successful implementation of the IANA function itself. If the Board and ICANN are, however, not willing to accept such limitations on their own authority then many members of the CCWG believe that accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG will need to be commensurately broadened.”
I do not, of course, care terribly much about the specific language we use. My goal, however, is to find a way to get Board input into our decision making at a point where it can significantly narrow (or substantially broadened) our field of consideration.
Perhaps more to the point, simply asking the question creates information – if the Board is unable or unwilling to answer at all (or if it answers in the negative) that would, in and of itself, justify the community in seeking a broader accountability package. By contrast, if the Board answers affirmatively, then our task is much simpler – we need to reach consensus on the critical WS0 board control mechanisms and then add only the IANA function-related mechanisms we deem necessary.
So … my proposal is simply that the Chairs of our WG find some way of both asking this question formally and getting a formal answer for us at the earliest practicable opportunity.
I wish everyone a very healthy and happy new year.
Warm regards
Paul
***NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ****
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
*From:* Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] *Sent:* Monday, December 29, 2014 8:16 AM *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Cc:* Brenda Brewer *Subject:* [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC
Dear all,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the CCWG-Accountability call on 30 December at 19:00 UTC. I will send to call details to the Notify list.
*Proposed Agenda*:
1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statements of Interest
2. Membership Updates
3. Work Area Updates
WA1 – David Maher / Samantha Eisner
WA2 – Steve DelBianco
WA3 – Avri Doria
WA4 – Eric Brunner-Williams
4. Coordination between CWG and ICG
5. Expectations for the F2F
6. AOB
7. Closing Remarks
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (15)
-
"Carlos Raúl G." -
Adebunmi AKINBO -
Beran Gillen - Yahoo! -
Carrie -
Carrie Devorah
-
David W. Maher -
Dina Beer -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Grace Abuhamad -
Jonathan Zuck -
Kieren McCarthy -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Robin Gross -
Rudolph Daniel -
Seun Ojedeji