Kavouss
Now Questions to
To Bruce
or Chairman of the Board
I formally request you or the chairman of the Board to clearly provide the position of the Board taking into account apparent discrepancies between the statements and testimony already made since the creation of CCWG.
The Board needs to explicitly and clearly reply to the following questions
1. Question 1,
Irrespective of previous statements and or testimony, does the Board accept or reject the CMSM as it is on 11 October 2015?
2. Question 2,
Irrespective of previous statements and or testimony, does the Board accept or Reject the Sole Designator Model?
3. Question 3
Under the MEM, how the MEM Issue Group functions? Does it need to form an Unincorporated Association among the members of the Group?
4. Question 4,
At what Occasion/Time or under what circumstances the MEM Issue Group will be established
5. Question 5
Who are the members of the MEM Issue Group?
6. Question 6
Is there a quorum for the MEM Issue Group?
6.1 What are the criteria for that Quorum?
6.2 If the quorum is met, then how the decision will be made?
6.2.1 By adoption of a resolution on consensus basis? Please confirm; or
6.2.2 By Voting of SOs ACs; Pleases confirm
7. Question 7
What happens if the Quorum is not reached?
7.1 The case is dead? Then the community power is not implemtable?
7.2 Then what after?
8. Question 8
How the SOs and ACs conclude on a given petition?
8.1 By adoption of a resolution on consensus basis? Please confirm; or
8.2 By Voting in SOs and Consensus in ACs ; Pleases confirm
9. Question 9
In case that the members of the Issue MEM Group are chairs of the SOs and ACs
9.1 What is the fiduciary and accountability status of each of those chairs of SOs and ACs?
9.2 What happens, if one or more chairs refrain to take the required action on proceeding with Binding arbitration, IN case the Unincorporated Association is not established and thus individual So and AC leaders has to / forced to individually file an arbitration ?
9.3 How many SO /AC leaders are required to initiate to file an arbitration? Or one is sufficient?
9.4 In the latter case ,what would be the status of the arbitration if only supported 7 initiated by one SO /AC while other SOs and ACs refrain from initiation?
10. Question 10
101. What is the relation between Mem Issue Group and Standing Panel?
10.2 What is the relation between Standing Panel and IRP?
103. Which subjects are submitted to Standing Panel and which subject are submitted to IRP
11. Question 11
Should the outcome from MEM Issue Group be on consensus basis ,why mem requires that the decision should be valid unless there is one advice from an AC against it ? Doesn’t it mean that one AC consensus advice is sufficient to kill the outcome? Doesn’t it mean by having one AC consensus advice against the issue and vetoing the case that AC alone will capture the entire MEN Issue Group?
12. Question 12
If all those questions are satisfactorily replied, is there any guarantee that the CWG requirements to implement PTI process would are fully met ?
Kavouss
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> 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>> 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>] 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>>; 'Accountability Cross
> Community' <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>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <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>]
> Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:03 PM
> To: 'Accountability Cross Community'
> <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>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> 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
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community