+1 On Wednesday, May 6, 2015, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
+1. For Roelof's comments on captioned subject matter. Respect is due to all community members who participated and worked very hard on this proposal. RD
On May 6, 2015 11:37 AM, "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
Dear ccTLD colleagues,
It is with reluctance that I react to this thread, but I feel obliged to do so. Reluctance, because I prefer to ignore Eberhard Lisse when he sends out one of his quite characteristic emails. Obliged, however, because as his advice to you on how to deal with the request for community feed-back on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 proposals published on 4 May, he "strongly urge[s] all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish².
I consider that to be very poor, even irresponsible, advice, and urge you to read the report and give your feed-back. If you don¹t agree; let us know, if you have suggestions for improvements; tell us. But above all: give us guidance with your opinion on the specific issues that we ask
your
feed-back on in the report.
The Enhancement of ICANN¹s Accountability is an inseparable part of the IANA Stewardship Transition, a conditio sine qua non. The successful transition of the IANA Stewardship is a necessity for the global, single internet to develop to it¹s maximum potential. However, we will not have a second chance any time soon and thus we cannot afford to fail. The final proposals to enhance ICANN¹s accountability and to transition to IANA Stewardship are the ultimate test of the multi-stakeholder model and failure would, in the end, mean the end of that model.
So you cannot even afford to ignore the CCWG draft proposals, or any other proposal in this process. Unless maybe if you want to get rid of the multi-stakeholder model...
Like Eberhard Lisse, I am one of the ccTLD Community¹s participants in the CCWG. Very unlike Eberhard Lisse, I am proud of what the CCWG published on 4 May. It is certainly not perfect, it surely is not complete and it is definitely not final. The timeline, the enormous amount of work, the unknown territories we had to explore and insights and opinions we had to unite, made the process quite painful at times. But the result -and in the end that is what really counts- is good. To be honest: far better then I expected. And quite solid enough to ask your feed-back on. So it can be improved.
Our three co-chairs Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert and León Felipe Sánchez-Ambia deserve no criticism, but our deep respect. For their leadership and guidance, for the substance they brought and also for the way they acted on feed-back from the group or individual members/participants. They were -and are- real assets in this process. Eberhard Lisse, in my opinion, is not.
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 06-05-15 07:44, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Byron, Dear Colleagues,
To set the record straight, Dr Lisse's statements about the violation of the CCWG Accountability Charter and the dynamics of the group are a misrepresentation of facts. Speaking of facts, we are more than happy to provide details in response to the accusations as well as explanations we gave to Dr Lisse on the public mailing list, to support our statement.
We would also note for the benefit of readers of these lists that Dr Lisse has filed countless objections against almost everything the CCWG did since it started. Participants and members of the CCWG have expressed to the co-chairs that they consider Dr Lisse's behaviour as an attempt to discredit the work of fellow volunteers and derail the work of the group.
We will not burden everyone on the lists that were cc-ed with details, especially when we have the opportunity to discuss and engage on substance. But we wanted to set this record straight, and express our deep sadness about the use of such a process within the ccTLD community.
That being said, we encourage other ccTLD members and participants in the CCWG to express their views related to the substance of the proposals.
Best, Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill, co-chairs
Le 05/05/2015 11:36, Dr Eberhard Lisse a écrit :
[sorry for the double post, technical issue] Dear Byron,
as tmember appointed by the (chartering) ccNSO to the CCWG Accountability I have followed the Charter, in particular in raising my concerns of my points consistently being ignored and rejected by the Co-Chairs of this CCWG, one of whom is Mathieu Weill, the posting of whom, herein-under, I wish to address, "through the chair".
Please assure that staff forwards this to all Council Members who do not have access to the above lists.
These "current proposals" have been arrived at in violation of the Charter, without the necessary Consensus Call for all positions, and in violation of the Charter by refusing the opportunity to attach minority views.
They also have been rushed over the objection of myself in which I have been joined in various degrees, shape or form by appointed members of every constituency chartering, even several GAC members expressing themselves in this regard.
This was done in order to get "something" passed prior to a non existing deadline instead of doing this carefully, thoroughly and inclusively.
As usual the gNSO members and in particular un-appointed participants representing large interests were/are the driving force behind this rush-job.
The document is so convoluted that an expensive graphics company was hired for several months to generate these professional graphics in order to just be able to understand the document.
Even Mathieu doesn't understand it, because he not only refers to it as a "report" which under the Charter REQUIRES a Consensus Call and attachment of minority views, if any, and he alleges that it has any relevance to ccTLDs, which is has not.
The community he refers to is ill defined, and in any case the ccNSO has no mandate whatsoever to act on decisions, acts or omissions affecting individual ccTLDs.
According to the Charter the CCWG must address ALL accountability issues with the exception of administrative and operational IANA issues, which were to have been addressed by CWG Stewardship, where they were not being addressed, of course.
This was used to refuse and/or ignore any request that had anything to do with the root zone and/or the IANA Function, in particular the fundamental issues, which remain unresolved.
I will post something like this into the Comment Box for the record, but I strongly urge all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish.
Finally, I am personally offended by him thanking the ccTLD members and characterizing their participation, in particular since hardly any input by ccTLD members/participants had any effect on ccTLD Managers' positions, and because he does not mean it.
For me it is not a pleasure to work in this CCWG and in particular not an honor to work with him and any other of the other Co-Chairs.
el
On 2015-05-05 07:53, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Thank you Gabi for sharing this announcement.
In addition to the public comment announcement
( https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposa l-2015-05-04-en) the CCWG-Accountability produced some graphics describing the current proposals (PDF,
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52897394/XPL_CCWG_Illus
tratedConcepts_v2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1430799940397&api=v2) , which you might find helpful, although of course nothing replaces reading the actual report.
While this report is not focused on IANA, it is very relevant to ccTLDs : it addresses the accountability enhancements requested by the CWG Iana stewardship transition latest proposal, proposes additional powers for the community, including the ccNSO, and strongly reinforces Icannn's appeal mechanisms.
For more details, the CCWG-Accountability will hold two identical webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on:
11 May from 11:00 12:30 UTC 11 May from 19:00 20:30 UTC
Details can be found here : https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en
I seize this opportunity to thank all ccTLD members and participants to this group. They have done a tremendous job, demonstrating the value of ccTLD inputs to the overall community. As co-chair, it is a great pleasure and an honour to work with such a team.
We are now more than ever in listening mode and look forward to your questions and feedbacks.
Best regards, Mathieu [...]
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.) ICANN Fellow / ISOC Member Web/OGPL Portal Specialist National Information Technology Agency (NITA) Ghana Open Data Initiative (GODI) Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana Tel; +233 20 812881 Email: wisdom_dk@hotmail.com wisdom.donkor@data.gov.gh wisdom.dk@gmail.com Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: facebook@wisdom_dk Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh