Thank you, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Mar 26, 2015, at 10:20, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
Thank you for pointing out the second read. You are right. This needs a second read in our next call.
I apologize for the unintended mistake and will be happy to include it as an agenda item for our next call.
I do like the idea of having Kieren in the team.
Best regards,
León
El 26/03/2015, a las 9:22, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <directors@omadhina.net> escribió:
Kieren,
please read my previous email as being in full agreement with your rationale.
Leon,
we need to "read" this again on our next call, which would be next Tuesday, what time? Please advise ASAP, so Kieren can see whether he can make the time to join :-)-O
el
PS: I might even be interested in lurking on the legal sub-team list, eminently qualified as I am being a Gynaecologist :-)-O
On 2015-03-26 09:10, Kieren McCarthy wrote: So I'll be honest - what I read is a single justification to have a closed sub-group that is directly contradicted by your own words moments earlier.
Sole justification: "As I said, this is an open, and will remain open for anyone that wants to participate, but we need to of course face the fact that having a conversation between 160 persons and a law firm might not be the more practical approach."
But moments earlier you state that you'd never had more than seven people on a call. So you are stating a future possibility that is not based on current realities. And then limiting the process' accountability and transparent norms based on that purely hypothetical situation. Why?
I'll also note that the sub group immediately decided to do away with your promise to keep it open "for anyone that wants to participate". So it could be argued that the vote that was taken did not accurately represent was is actually in place.
As for authorization: you provided an exceptionally busy group with at most a few minutes to decide on a proposal that you put forward with the strong implication that it needed a positive vote in order to progress.
This doesn't meet any kind of standard for good governance.
Furthermore I'll note that there was no discussion at all over the clear conflict of interest that exists in having a member of ICANN's legal team as the support for a group whose sole purpose is to provide legal advice independently of ICANN.
Please don't take this personally, I have no doubt you are an honorable and hardworking member of the internet community. But this process and the decisions being made don't pass muster on even the most relaxed and generous grounds.
Kieren
- [sent through phone]
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:43 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Dear Arun,
Thanks for your message. The team role would be to pass along messages to the law firms and follow up on them in order to make it easier to handle the communications between the law firms and the larger CCWG.
This, of course, does not mean that no other members or participants of the wider CCWG would be able to raise questions and request further information or clarifications to any question raised.
I hope this helps clarify the team’s role.
Best regards, [...]
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community