Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 11 Oct 2015 15:10, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
. The co-chairs read the signs, tell us where they think we are and we (or maybe the members) let them know if they got it right.
SO: Your statement above is consistent with what I have in mind when I pose the question; It's important to hear what the Co-Chairs are observing so we can be clear on what we already have consensus on, what is pending and their suggested approach on how to arrive at a workable solution that is roughly acceptable. We have written so much, occasional observation(interpretation) of what has been discussed from Co-Chairs is important. We are heading into Dublin and I think it's important to have a clear idea of items we expect to completely resolve during the face2face.
Or at least that is how I thought it worked.
SO: I believe we are in agreement of how it works. I have the privilege of chairing within other organisations as well so I believe I have an idea of the role of Co-Chairs. Regards
avri
On 11-Oct-15 00:47, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Avri,
Thanks for your response, I will not really attempt to address your view so this does not distract from the essence of starting this thread.
I think we have quite a number of differing individual opinion and it gets so high at times that we miss the directions from the Co-Chairs.
I will really appreciate that the Co-Chairs specifically provide response to this question so we have an idea of what page we are officially at in this process.
Regards PS: Co-Chairs may also just put a stamp on what Avri has said if that's their understanding as well. Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 10 Oct 2015 20:32, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
(I know this was addressed to the co-chairs and i am not one, yet I presume to have an opinion on the subject)
As far as I understood we are, in parallel:
a. analyzing and trying to respond to the comments, including those by the Board, made about defects in explanation and design in the SM model of Draft 2 b. analyzing the MEM counter proposal made by the Board
I disagree with your claim that working on the SM model is impractical. It is still the model that responds to the largest number of
community
concerns and best meets the CWG requirements.
The suggestion by Steve D. is just that, a suggestion. I do not believe that there is a consensus in the group, at least not yet, about
taking
that path. Many, myself among them, have argued that we are not comfortable with putting off the major accountability changes that
are
required by the loss of NTIA. Yes, we need to prune and make sure
that
the changes we work on are necessary for WS1, but given the uncertainties about the post transition and any possible WS2, we
must
make sure that the WS1 solution is sufficient.
avri
On 10-Oct-15 14:53, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Dear Co-Chairs, > > FWIW, I think at this point, it will be good to have an understanding > of where we are heading from the Co-Chairs. In some discussions it > seem we have understood and agreed that a model that implies a > structural change is impractical during this transition phase
hence
> the suggestion made by Steve. > > Yet in other discussions it seem we are going ahead with the > structural change model irrespective of the concerns raised from parts > of the community and board. > > In other to prepare towards Dublin and contribute in a meaningful way, > I think a summary of where we are presently and what is expected to be > achieved in Dublin will be helpful. I apologise if this has
already
> been shared, and in that case a pointer will be appreciated. > > Regards > > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 10 Oct 2015 19:37, "Stephen Deerhake" <sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> > <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>>> wrote: > > Paul, > > Perhaps the Board chair is articulating a minority viewpoint? > Afterall, the > Board will have to vote on the matter of sending/not sending
the
> output of > the CCWG on to NTIA. > > Stephen Deerhake > > -----Original Message----- > From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>] On > Behalf Of Paul > Rosenzweig > Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:05 AM > To: 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> > <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>>; 'Accountability Cross > Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work > headed to > Dublin > > With respect Bruce, I share Anne's view that this is not > accurate. The > Board chair has stated unequivocally that the Board will not submit a > Membership based proposal. That is contrary to the statement that > the Board > will submit any proposal it receives from the CCWG "as is." That is > categorically ruling out one type of "as is" proposal. > > If you are seriously telling me that even after all this back and > forth the > Board actually would submit a "Membership only" based proposal to > the NTIA > then I would respectfully say that the Board has done a very poor > job of > communicating. > > So ... answer this question please as directly as you are > willing: If, > today, the CCWG having considered but declined to accept the > Board's input > were to submit a proposal based upon a Membership organization > would the > Board transmit it to the NTIA as the ICANN proposal? > > Paul > > Paul Rosenzweig > paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> > Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 > Link to my PGP Key > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> > <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>] > Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:03 PM > To: 'Accountability Cross Community' > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work > headed to > Dublin > > Hello Paul, > > Regarding: > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en > > The statement still holds. > > The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and
has
> stated all > along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait > for a > final proposal to raise any concerns. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@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@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@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@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@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@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community