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

[Mueller, Milton L]

Off list.

Frankly, Daniel, I discount your opinion on the ICANN accountability process entirely. Neither of you have to live with the consequences of an unaccountable ICANN. It doesn't affect the policies the RIRs live under and you have full contractual accountability for the IANA functions (i.e. you can opt out if you please). I would encourage you to refrain from offering opinions that are designed to truncate the reform process so that you can withdraw to your own little world safely. There is nothing realistic or pragmatic about what you are saying here, if indeed you actually understand the consequences of what you are saying (which I doubt) you are indeed cynical and even dishonest. 

--MM 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Daniel Karrenberg
> Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 3:41 AM
> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN Board Concerns about CCWG Proposed
> Model -- My Assessment
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org