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

Fri Oct 9 07:41:05 UTC 2015

Paul,

No you are not cynical, just much too realistic and pragmatic for many.
By and large you say what I see: changing the  engines and the flight
crew while in flight is not good operating practice and the flight crew
is fully justified to resist it. I believe them when they say that they
will consider better engines when safely on the ground.

Daniel

On 9.10.15 7:19 , Paul Wilson wrote:
> Hi Keith, Milton et al,
> 
> I said last night that the ICG should engage somehow in the CCWG
> discussion, so I’m happy to see this and to provide some comments on
> this thread.
> 
> 1. There is high risk associated with CCWG proposal because it offers a
> substantially different Governance structure. It cannot be proved safe
> (as Milton said), which is exactly the problem when it is so far removed
> from the current structure.  And it seems that time has run out to
> achieve agreement among the CCWG, let alone with others who need to be
> convinced.
> 
> 2. On the other hand ICANN’s current model IS tested, by way of 15 years
> of operations.  This was surely not an entire waste of time!  If, based
> on that experience, the community can identify a set of changes to
> improve it in reliable ways, specifically by providing (for the first
> time?) properly enforceable accountability mechanisms, then that is
> surely worth considering as a less risky option, and maybe the only
> achievable option now.
> 
> 3. There are quite a few risks as Milton said, but the risk of
> (un)acceptability of the final model is perfectly real and must be
> addressed objectively.  I don’t think this can be characterised as
> “cynical”.
> 
> 4. Much about the “sole membership” structure is yet to be determined,
> but cannot be determined in the time available. For this reason it is
> not necessary to be for or against it; but rather to ensure that a
> discussion and decision about this development can take
> place in the future, and be enforceable if and when that happens.
> 
> 5. This is not about the board, and it is not only about
> explain/understanding it;  it is about agreeing on a workable plan which
> can be understood by all concerned, and also being able to implement it
> in the time available.
> 
> The board has stated clearly that they do not oppose the Single Member
> model per se.  Unless someone wants to question them on some
> demonstrated contradiction, isn’t it better that we accept their
> assurance, and hold them to it later?
> 
> As I said last night I think we do have a role and responsibility here.
> We at the ICG should be able to discuss this in an objective and sincere
> way. Unless we are happy to see the work we have done go down the drain,
> I really think we should get moving.
> 
> Paul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 9 Oct 2015, at 7:48, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
> http://www.apnic.net                                            @apnicdg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org