[Internal-cg] ICANN Board Concerns about CCWG Proposed Model -- My Assessment

[Mueller, Milton L]

I think Keith's summary is an accurate summary of the board's position, but I would add the following caveats:

1. It's a tragedy that what we are getting and discussing at this time is the board's position only, instead of a comprehensive analysis of the public comments as a whole. The board is but one organization out of nearly 100 who commented. 

2. Many of the board positions are obviously without merit, e.g.:

> -----Original Message-----
> -- Introducing a different governance structure, i.e. membership, is new,
> untested, and cannot be proven to resist capture in the limited time available
> to meet the September 2016 date.

This argument asks one to prove a negative (X will not be captured). Can't be done.  

> -- Shifting authority from the Board to an untested membership body is
> potentially destabilizing and will be difficult or impossible to sell as not
> introducing risk at a delicate time.

California Nonprofit public benefit corps are assumed to have members. What is "untested" is a Cal nonprofit WITHOUT either members or NTIA oversight

The risk argument is especially cynical. What could be riskier than inadequate community empowerment mechanisms over an ICANN that has no USG oversight? 

> -- If we're going to shift authority, we must also shift a commensurate level of
> accountability, and the current SOs and ACs do not have sufficient
> accountability at this time.

Facepalm. All of the representatives in the SOs are elected, unlike ICANN's board, and membership in these entities is open subject to reasonable and accountable eligibility requirements.  

> -- ICANN and its SOs/ACs need to be safe from capture from outside and from
> within; empowering the SOs and ACs without clear safeguards is problematic.

There are all kinds of safeguards; requirements for supermajorities, an independent review process; this is just ICANN legal fearing it will lose control 

> -- Concentrating power in a new "sole membership" body is not balanced if it
> doesn't include all community members, and two groups (SSAC and RSSAC)
> have said they want to remain advisory.

And they should remain advisory. ACs are not policy making entities, they are appointed by the board, and their composition overlaps with the SOs significantly. 

> -- Shifting from consensus-based decision-making to reliance on a voting
> structure is not consistent with the multi-stakeholder model.

The level of hypocrisy in this one is so great I am unable to respond in language that would be suitable for a public forum

> -- The CCWG recommendation is too complex and difficult to
> explain/understand, so we need to make smaller, incremental changes that
> are more easily implemented and understood.

I think the board understands the proposal all too well. They see a loss of power, and are resisting it to the death, full stop.

> -- A recommendation requiring a substantial governance restructuring will
> suggest that ICANN is currently broken -- a politically risky message going into
> the transition.

ROFL.