Hi.

I am sorry I had to cut off discussion in the meeting today. As a co-chair, I felt that we were not going to achieve consensus for making a comment in that meeting, and we had a full agenda.

I do not, however, want to cut off discussion. ALAC can communicate its position by other means if we miss the comment deadline. As you say, this is a core subject in terms of our multistakeholder model, so if AL can reach consensus on the subject, it should communicate that to the board. I also agree that there is good reason in sending this in as a personal statement, perhaps with co-signers and endorsers after the fact.

On the personal opinion side of the discussion, I think that this issue, an issue that has been fiercely argued from time to time for 20 years, in one form or another, is based on a misunderstanding of the ICANN model and its scope. The following is a comment I just recently added to Michael's draft, that I decided to pass on to the list after having finished it.

I think the basic problem is that ICANN is not fully multistakeholder with regard to its contracting. By having carved off a section of the contracts as subject to consensus policy, the famous picket fence, it has excluded other parts of contracting from multistakeholder governance. This is not an issue we seem to recognize in the community. We keep insisting that the multistakeholder methods of governance should apply to all contracts in all their clauses, but the corporation insists that this is not the case, i.e. those aspects are not part of the ICANN multistakeholder bargain with the community.

There is of course, a slim tether to the multistakeholder community, in the fact that the Board selected by the multistakeholder community often, sometimes at least, has the last word on contracting. If the community cannot content itself with the partial multistakeholder model, then we have a different issue.

(i will pop this into an email to the CPWG list)

From a co-chair perspective, I will go with whatever the CPWG can agree to, either in time for the deadline or sometime after.

thanks

avri

On 2024-10-30 14:29, mike palage.com via CPWG wrote:

Hello All,

In advance of our CPWG call later today, I wanted to share a draft of the proposed ALAC statement, see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sk4dwR5_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142aGAQ/edit?tab=t.0

My apologies for not getting this out sooner, but I have been juggling several day job conflicts. However, the statement is only two pages, so it is rather concise and an easy read. Taking the feedback of Avri on the doom and gloom of “this represents a systemic threat to the ICANN multistakeholder model” I have toned that wording down to “undermines the multistakeholder” which I think is a reasonable compromise.

I look forward to answering any questions people may have on today’s call.

Best regards,

Michael

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.