Tijani, This is easy to solve: We just do NOT accept. The Terms of Reference are very clear on the required consensus of appointed members. I am personally not as sure as you about the quality of the work (which I think I already stated very clearly in Singapore (when I questioned our whole approach, suggesting to start afresh)), the driving forces and their intentions. Can I have your permission to forward this to the wider ccnso/cctld lists? And, should you not perhaps include ALAC, as well? I think accountability and transparency would be served well, if we did. In case I can not post to the council list, Byron or Bart, please forward. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 9, 2015, at 21:23, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> wrote:
Dear all,
I agree with Eberhard and Roelof. I was one of those who insisted that we don’t have to try to comply with a deadline. Others before me made the same suggestion. We need to work for an agreed proposal by the whole members of this group. But unfortunately, running like we are doing now makes us accept decision with something similar to a consensus because most of the group members can’t stop everything in their job and their personal life to follow the work done by a few very dynamic and committed people who I thank very much for the amount of work they are doing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Roelof Meijer Envoyé : jeudi 9 avril 2015 13:01 À : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc : ccnso-council@icann.org Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
Dear co-chairs, dear all,
I find myself in agreement with Eberhard with regard to the steep increase in the number of calls for both the CCWG as well as its subgroups like wp1 and acct-legal.
It frustrates me to see that, after a period during which we burned a lot of time on -let me politely phrase it as „less relevant and/or out of scope”- subjects and several of us warned against the deadline becoming unreachable, we have know replaced the deadline that has become unrealistic with a work planning that is simply absurd.
As a result, we now have roughly a two hour conference call every day of the week, several days with two calls, and thus more calls in a week at unholy hours. I object to this way of working, as it makes the whole process far less inclusive. Many of us have both a demanding job as well as a private life, both of which we cherish. For me it is now simply unavoidable to miss a significant part of the calls and impossible to deal with all the necessary working groups’ work in-between them. I know that this is now the case for quite a number of us.
We are rushing forward to reach a deadline which is nothing more by now than a dead line, and in our hurry seem to accept that the process loses inclusiveness, transparency and accountability, leaving us with an outcome that will be of much lower quality.
I for one, find this unacceptable.
Best regards,
Roelof A. Meijer CEO
SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/>
On 08-04-15 14:15, "Dr Eberhard Lisse" <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you very much.
so next week 3 calls (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, the latter of which I could not make even if I wanted to (see below))?
The following week another three (Monday, and 2 on Tuesday)?
More than one call per week is already difficult enough to absorb, but three? And then two on one day? When we are already spending too much time on process and very little on substance?
This is not conducive to thoughtful deliberation and as I have said numerous times I am opposed to rushing things through just because of a perceived deadline, which in our case does not even exist in reality.
I object to this.
And while we are at it, I have asked NUMEROUS times to have the legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root and/or the IANA function researched by our legal advisers. I was told it would be done, but it has not from what I can see and my repeated requests in this regards have been ignored by the Co-Chairs.
I have made several requests/suggestions in how to deal with the GAO, which the Co-Chairs do not agree with. Be that as it may, I reserve the rights to communicate my thoughts to the GAO as they have explicitly requested/suggested.
I have extremely serious concerns about at least the passage of the German collaborative white paper (or whatever it is called), which as far as ccTLDs are concerned is totally our of order and unacceptable, in as much it suggests that ccTLD/ccNSO policy being taken over by governments (which as we all know is opposed to the USG's stated intent.
The GAC Representative of Denmark has proposed in Istanbul during the ad-hoc Stress Test Breakfast, what I understand to be a total removal of ccNSO's policy making powers, in favor of governments deciding. Using the words "Out with the Old" he stated that the RFCs must be done away with. I am not clear whether this is the position of the Representative, his government or the GAC, but when read together with the above, this is not acceptable to me.
I have not that many concerns with regards to Delegation of a ccTLD (after establishment), including a Transfer of an exsiting ccTLD.
But as far as Revocation of an incumbent ccTLD Manager is concerned, I have stated numerous times, that we need to preserve the existing rights of incumbent ccTLD Managers.
This is NOT negotiable.
And the best way of doing this is by way of the Framework of Interpretation Principles.
Mr Chehade has apparently in public (and on the record) accused senior ccTLD managers of not knowing how the IANA functions work. As a ccTLD Manager with 24 years uninterrupted service I tend to agree that I do not know how the IANA function is operated by the current Function Manager (ICANN), though I do have a really good idea how it SHOULD be operated.
Therefor I have requested that Mr Chehade explain to us how this works. I can not find any feedback on this issue.
Unless these issues are addressed to my satisfaction (and I am not saying that they must be resolved necessarily to my satisfaction) I shall, as a ccNSO appointed member, be formally objecting to any output of the CCWG-Accountability.
I am circulating this to the usual ccTLD lists as well.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-08 12:10, Brenda Brewer wrote:
Hi Eberhard,
Please see attachment in pdf format.
Best, Brenda [...]