I agree as well. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jan 15, 2015, at 16:40, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
I agree with Paul, Mathieu etc - the Charter language is the skeleton. The language proposed sets out to characterise why we would select items - i.e. why they have to be done before the transition.
We have to set out transparently the criteria we are using to decide what has to be in place. This language helps do that.
best Jordan
On 16 January 2015 at 04:17, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear All, I do not understand who agreed with whom What has been changed from the Charter. I personally fully agree with the following Quote " in the absence “mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability ( in relation with work stream 1 of CCWG ,for three distinct areas , Naming, Numbers and Protocols, including parameter ) could be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur." Unquote
Kavouss
2015-01-15 16:06 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <emorris@milk.toast.net>:
+1
Paul has eloquently expressed my views in a manner far superior to anything I could write. Thanks.
One could argue that our current system of accountability and transparency (reconsideration, Appeal, CEP, IR, DIDP), with some tweaks, should actually be sufficient going forward. It looks great: on paper. The problem is that a system designed for redress (per Bruce) actually functions as a system of review (per Robin), and a rather cursory review system at that. We simply must have mechanisms designed to ensure that we have real systems of accountability, ones that does not rely on the good faith and open-mindedness of any particular Board or staff member or group, in place before the transition can be allowed to occur. -----Original Message----- From: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> To: "'Tijani BEN JEMAA'" <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>, <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:22:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition
Respetful disagreement. I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the “new” definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place. Put another way, I think that the exposition in WS1 precisely describes the commitments that MUST be made before a transition is allowed to occur. More importantly, I think there is growing consensus across the community that this is so. To state it affirmatively – in the absence “mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur.
Paul
**NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
From: Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition
Dear all,
I read again the new proposed definition of the Work Streams, and I found it too different from the one in our charter:
In the charter: · Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; · Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition
The new proposal: · Work Stream 1 mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. · All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board.
I don’t believe that we are allowed to change any part of the charter without going back to the chartering organizations and ask for their approval.
On the other hand, the separation of WS 1 and WS 2 was for the purpose of having the accountability mechanisms necessary before the transition done in time, and the new definition doesn’t satisfy this requirement
I would prefer stay with the charter definition for all those reasons
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability2 mailing list Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability2
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability3 mailing list Ccwg-accountability3@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability3