January 2016 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Boating in January. Was: Work plan in January
by Roelof Meijer Jan. 1, 2016

Jan. 1, 2016

Chris, Nigel, Let me get this clear: you guys can¹t participate in the calls in January because you¹re both on a boat trip? And Nigel wants to abandon the boat because Chris is in too? I can understand that, but would have expected it to be the other way around (not meaning the boat abandoning Nigel) Cheers, Roelof On 30-12-15 13:03, "accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Nigel Roberts" <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of nigel(a)channelisles.net> wrote: >I'm very personally in the same boat. > >I have attempted to add some value to the process, but in view of the >nature (probably by design) of the proposed work-plan, I'm on the point >of abandoning all but the most superficial of participation. > >I'm sure others are in this boat with me ... > >On 30/12/15 11:28, Chris Disspain wrote: >> Hi Mathieu, >> >> Thanks for this. Do you have a proposed topic agenda yet. I won¹t be >> able to make all the calls (and I expect others will be in the same >> boat) so it would helpful to have an overarching agenda for the calls as >> soon as possible. Apologies if this has been sent already and I have >> missed it. >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> Chris >> >> >>> On 30 Dec 2015, at 20:50 , Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr >>> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Kavouss, Dear Paul, All, >>> >>> Some of you have raised concerns about the work plan and the decision >>>to >>> schedule two calls a week, announced in my 24th December email. >>> >>> Participants to our meeting #73 will remember that this issue was >>> discussed during that call >>> (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56986612) >>>Key >>> take away was the need for plenary discussions rather than multiplying >>> subgroups. >>> >>> While we certainly recognize the different views expressed about the >>> timeline for delivering our final report, we are also trying to >>>organize >>> our calls in a manner that enables inclusive and informed debate about >>>the >>> comments received. 24 hours of calls in January "only" represent two >>>hours >>> of discussions per recommendation (leaving aside other types of issues >>> that we dedicate time on during our calls). Two hours to fully >>>understand >>> concerns and find a way forward that is acceptable to all. >>> >>> We hope that, by using a topic based agenda and providing a thorough >>> analysis of the comments received ahead of the call, we can make the >>>best >>> use of everyone's time during these calls, so that they can remain >>>driven >>> by the willingness to understand each of the concerns in good faith and >>> find common ground, as we have demonstrated in the past that our group >>>can >>> do. >>> >>> If needed and desired within the group, we might have to rely on >>>intensive >>> days (possibly on a week end) as some of you suggested, but we are >>>aware >>> of the challenges of such an approach and would like to avoid that as >>>much >>> as possible. >>> >>> As a follow up to the discussion that took place during our meeting >>>#73, >>> we will put these proposals for discussion during our next meeting, on >>> January 5th, and look forward to your further contributions and >>> suggestions. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Leon, Thomas & Mathieu >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >

7 8

Global Public Interest discussion
by Thomas Rickert Jan. 1, 2016

Jan. 1, 2016

Dear all, following our last CCWG call, we had reached out to our advisors to get input on the question of Global Public Interest (GPI). Below, you find the response we got from Jan Aart Scholte, which we pass on to the list with his permission. On our list, there has been quite some discussion on the question of GPI and also some confusion on 1. whom we asked 2. what we wanted to achieve with the question and 3. what the impact of the discussion on our work would be, if any. With this note, we would like to offer some responses to the above points. Ad 1 Some of you wrote that we should not get the lawyers involved in defining the GPI for various reasons. Please note that we have asked the Advisors that were picked by the Public Expert Group. We have not asked (nor do we intend to) ask our legal advisors, i.e. Holly and Rosemary and her teams to deal with this. As a reminder, all requests to the lawyers need to be certified and are then added to a public list, which can be seen here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896826 Requests, their status and the answers are published on that page. Ad 2 With its comments, the ICANN Board has raised GPI concerns with some of our recommendations. It should go without saying that the Co-Chairs take these concerns seriously. While discussing this input, some of you (I think the idea came from Kavouss) suggested to investigate this further. Therefore, we have suggested to the CCWG to seek input from our independent advisors in addition to the clarifications we have asked form the Board on their application of GPI considerations. This request was supported by the CCWG. The goal is not to work on a definition of the GPI, but to better understand what definitions there are and what the impact on our work could be. Jan has kindly responded in line with views that have already been expressed by some of you on the list, i.e. that there is no easy answer to the question and that there is no universally applicable definition. We should therefore be able to put the discussion on this at rest. Ad 3 As said before, our group should continue analyzing comments and refine the recommendations where necessary to finalize consensus recommendations. While doing so, we should be conscious that the Board will apply the test whether or not our recommendations are in the GPI. Ideally, there would be no issues with the GPI as I am sure no one in our group intends to be working on recommendations that are not in the GPI. We therefore recommend we should offer information on the GPI implications (or the lack thereof) in our final report. A rationale with respect to GPI will ensure that not only the Board, but also NTIA and the whole community understands that we are taking GPI concerns seriously. We think that offering a GPI related rationale is valuable for transparency reasons and we hope that it will help everyone understand that and why our final recommendations do not or will not be against the GPI. Some of you have stated that our work on GPI will not prevent the Board from raising GPI concerns and this is certainly true. However, we are convinced that - being transparent on our view on GPI as described above and - inviting the Board to work with us even closer during this final phase and encouraging the Board to raise any issues in the process (see our e-mail to Steve Crocker) will help reduce the risk of GPI concerns being identified by the Board at a later stage. We hope this help and welcome your input of this recommendation to include a « GPI rationale » as part of our recommendations. Kind regards, Leon Sanchez Mathieu Weill Thomas Rickert --- rickert.net

6 8

Happy New Year
by Kavouss Arasteh Jan. 1, 2016

Jan. 1, 2016

MY VERY Dear Distinguished and respectful CCWG Colleagues,. I would like to express my sincere wishes to all of you and the communities to which you are associated. May 2016 be a year of happiness , prosperity ,healthy and successful year for you and your surroundings. Should in my professional discussions and exchange of e-mail , including my last one, there was expressions, terms and words that might have grieved you or was interpreted to do so, I regret and apologize for that and hope that you would take it positively and with no intention otherwise . 2015 was a difficult and hardworking year for all of us. You have done a tremendous job in preparing three proposals the last one is under final review. Many thing were discussed and agreed upon and there yet few things to be discussed and agreed. HAPPY NEW YEAR Kavouss

1 0