I am EXTREMELY concerned about the GAC, since apparently after several years of work in the Framework of Interpretation Working Group in which 5 liaisons of the GAC (Heather Dryden, Jayantha Fernando, Frank March, Alice Munyua, Suzanne Radell) participated, and during which we briefed the GAC at almost every ICANN Meeting about our progress, they are now basically saying they know nothing about it, and they are upset about that we did it, never mind the charter and their participation. This casts doubt on the reliability and predictability of any GAC involvement and I need to know why GAC members are present and liaising (on behalf of the GAC) when the GAC later reneges. This needs to be cleared and/or settled, prior to any further work being conducted in ANY Wg with GAC involvement, but in particular this one. Or in other words, if that is the case, indeed, we do not need GAC liaison (or "members") on the CCWG-Accountability. Of course they can participate as "participants" in their personal capacity like anyone else. And, I find it ABSOLUTELY unacceptable that such a meeting is not announced to the Mailing List and conducted by the co-chairs basically behind the back of the "members", liasions, "participants" and observers. Just to make sure, that means UNACCEPTABLE! Never mind accountability. greetings, el On 2015-02-08 15:26 , Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
This morning Thomas & I attended a session in the GAC to update on our progress. Apologies to the members of the group who did not spot this meeting, we had very short notice. Leon could for instance not make it.
FYI, I paste below in telegram style the main feedbacks from the short Q&A session that took place.
Inputs from GAC room : -Argentina (Olga) : current focus of CCWG is focused on Icann itself. Requests more engagement outside, especially in Latin America. also raised the issue of equal footing in the future community system. This will be a sensitive issue for GAC
- Spain: When considering the option of member organisation, why not go beyond US law ? Feels that it limits participation to US experts. Also insists that accountability mechanisms must be effective, independent, affordable
- France : Very supportive of our proposals and suggested that the GAC supports the principles. Looking for a way to create some form of Board oversight
- Brazil : Acknowledged quality of CCWG work. Stresses importance of "independent" review & redress. Also noted that the way the Board will consider proposals will be very sensitive for them.
- Germany : Concern about interelation with CWG and timelines.
I did welcome the input and noted that GAC input was consistent with input from other parts of the community, which I found quite encouraging.
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community