All, please find attached the draft report with the input we got from the sub-teams. They can also be found at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report>. This is the frozen version of the document until our intensive two work days. Please note that you know most of the information already. We suggest you focus on the recommendations of WP1 and WP2, since the introductory part is primarily narrative and giving context. The stress test have been discussed quite extensively already. We are working on summaries or tables to make it easier for you to digest the information, but we wanted to get the frozen draft report out to you as soon as possible. Such additional materials will be worked on in collaboration with the rapporteurs to ensure that we provide information in a more handy while not misrepresenting interim work results. Let us also use this opportunity to thank all of you, our fabulous rapporteurs and staff for their outstanding work and commitment. Kindest regards, León, Mathieu and Thomas
Dear Co-Chairs, please advise how I will be able to attach my dissenting minority report (objecting against process and (lack of) substance) so it can be publicly commented on. greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 18, 2015, at 10:10, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
All, please find attached the draft report with the input we got from the sub-teams. They can also be found at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. This is the frozen version of the document until our intensive two work days. Please note that you know most of the information already. We suggest you focus on the recommendations of WP1 and WP2, since the introductory part is primarily narrative and giving context. The stress test have been discussed quite extensively already. We are working on summaries or tables to make it easier for you to digest the information, but we wanted to get the frozen draft report out to you as soon as possible. Such additional materials will be worked on in collaboration with the rapporteurs to ensure that we provide information in a more handy while not misrepresenting interim work results.
Let us also use this opportunity to thank all of you, our fabulous rapporteurs and staff for their outstanding work and commitment.
Kindest regards, León, Mathieu and Thomas
<Appendices - 17 April.pdf> <CCWG-Report Draft v1.1.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Eberhard, please note that our group has not reached a consensus yet. As mentioned on numerous occasions during our calls, we plan to present our interim findings to the community and invite the community to comment. The group will be alerted if and when we are asking for support with or objections to a set of recommendations that could form the consensus of the group. You will also be able to chime in when such final report is prepared for publication. Thanks, Thomas --- rickert.net
Am 18.04.2015 um 12:28 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
please advise how I will be able to attach my dissenting minority report (objecting against process and (lack of) substance) so it can be publicly commented on.
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 18, 2015, at 10:10, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
All, please find attached the draft report with the input we got from the sub-teams. They can also be found at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. This is the frozen version of the document until our intensive two work days. Please note that you know most of the information already. We suggest you focus on the recommendations of WP1 and WP2, since the introductory part is primarily narrative and giving context. The stress test have been discussed quite extensively already. We are working on summaries or tables to make it easier for you to digest the information, but we wanted to get the frozen draft report out to you as soon as possible. Such additional materials will be worked on in collaboration with the rapporteurs to ensure that we provide information in a more handy while not misrepresenting interim work results.
Let us also use this opportunity to thank all of you, our fabulous rapporteurs and staff for their outstanding work and commitment.
Kindest regards, León, Mathieu and Thomas
<Appendices - 17 April.pdf> <CCWG-Report Draft v1.1.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Co-Chairs indeed we do not have Consensus on the interim findings, so I intend to provide a minority viewpoint on the interim findings for public comment. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 20, 2015, at 14:35, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Dear Eberhard, please note that our group has not reached a consensus yet. As mentioned on numerous occasions during our calls, we plan to present our interim findings to the community and invite the community to comment.
The group will be alerted if and when we are asking for support with or objections to a set of recommendations that could form the consensus of the group. You will also be able to chime in when such final report is prepared for publication.
Thanks, Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 18.04.2015 um 12:28 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
please advise how I will be able to attach my dissenting minority report (objecting against process and (lack of) substance) so it can be publicly commented on.
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 18, 2015, at 10:10, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
All, please find attached the draft report with the input we got from the sub-teams. They can also be found at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. This is the frozen version of the document until our intensive two work days. Please note that you know most of the information already. We suggest you focus on the recommendations of WP1 and WP2, since the introductory part is primarily narrative and giving context. The stress test have been discussed quite extensively already. We are working on summaries or tables to make it easier for you to digest the information, but we wanted to get the frozen draft report out to you as soon as possible. Such additional materials will be worked on in collaboration with the rapporteurs to ensure that we provide information in a more handy while not misrepresenting interim work results.
Let us also use this opportunity to thank all of you, our fabulous rapporteurs and staff for their outstanding work and commitment.
Kindest regards, León, Mathieu and Thomas
<Appendices - 17 April.pdf> <CCWG-Report Draft v1.1.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Eberhard, it is not foreseen in our charter to have minority views for other scenarios than the consensus recommendations. I suggest you use the public comment period to voice your concerns or indicate your preference where our report is providing options as I am sure many of the colleagues in the CCWG and their respective groups will do. Thomas --- rickert.net
Am 20.04.2015 um 15:42 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs
indeed we do not have Consensus on the interim findings, so I intend to provide a minority viewpoint on the interim findings for public comment.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 20, 2015, at 14:35, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Dear Eberhard, please note that our group has not reached a consensus yet. As mentioned on numerous occasions during our calls, we plan to present our interim findings to the community and invite the community to comment.
The group will be alerted if and when we are asking for support with or objections to a set of recommendations that could form the consensus of the group. You will also be able to chime in when such final report is prepared for publication.
Thanks, Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 18.04.2015 um 12:28 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
please advise how I will be able to attach my dissenting minority report (objecting against process and (lack of) substance) so it can be publicly commented on.
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 18, 2015, at 10:10, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
All, please find attached the draft report with the input we got from the sub-teams. They can also be found at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. This is the frozen version of the document until our intensive two work days. Please note that you know most of the information already. We suggest you focus on the recommendations of WP1 and WP2, since the introductory part is primarily narrative and giving context. The stress test have been discussed quite extensively already. We are working on summaries or tables to make it easier for you to digest the information, but we wanted to get the frozen draft report out to you as soon as possible. Such additional materials will be worked on in collaboration with the rapporteurs to ensure that we provide information in a more handy while not misrepresenting interim work results.
Let us also use this opportunity to thank all of you, our fabulous rapporteurs and staff for their outstanding work and commitment.
Kindest regards, León, Mathieu and Thomas
<Appendices - 17 April.pdf> <CCWG-Report Draft v1.1.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co-Chairs, I remain confused by Thomas' advice.
From the charter:
The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection b) Consensus - a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree I quite doubt that we shall need advice from our legal SubTeam what EACH POSITION means. [...] In the absence of Full Consensus, the Chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report. [...] I quite doubt that we shall need advice from our legal SubTeam whether an interim report is a report. Oh, this reminds me, I want to join the Legal SubTeam. greetings, el On 2015-04-20 14:54, Thomas Rickert wrote:
Dear Eberhard, it is not foreseen in our charter to have minority views for other scenarios than the consensus recommendations. I suggest you use the public comment period to voice your concerns or indicate your preference where our report is providing options as I am sure many of the colleagues in the CCWG and their respective groups will do.
Thomas
--- rickert.net <http://rickert.net> [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Dear Eberhard, feel free to call me by my name. The process you are describing will be invoked if and when it comes to determining the level of consensus in the group. Typically, a consensus call is conducted by the chair(s) for this purpose. We are not at that stage yet. We are still in the process of gathering information and deliberating in preparation of what might become a consensus position. Should there be no consensus at that very point in time, we might have minority reports. Thomas --- rickert.net
Am 20.04.2015 um 16:12 schrieb Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I remain confused by Thomas' advice.
From the charter:
The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:
a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection
b) Consensus - a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree
I quite doubt that we shall need advice from our legal SubTeam what EACH POSITION means.
[...] In the absence of Full Consensus, the Chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report. [...]
I quite doubt that we shall need advice from our legal SubTeam whether an interim report is a report.
Oh, this reminds me, I want to join the Legal SubTeam.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-20 14:54, Thomas Rickert wrote: Dear Eberhard, it is not foreseen in our charter to have minority views for other scenarios than the consensus recommendations. I suggest you use the public comment period to voice your concerns or indicate your preference where our report is providing options as I am sure many of the colleagues in the CCWG and their respective groups will do.
Thomas
--- rickert.net <http://rickert.net> [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co-Chairs, this is a misrepresentation of the Charter and this whole sordid mess borders the deliberate, which would obviously invalidate the process. A report is a report and a position is a position. greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 20, 2015, at 15:43, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Dear Eberhard, feel free to call me by my name.
The process you are describing will be invoked if and when it comes to determining the level of consensus in the group. Typically, a consensus call is conducted by the chair(s) for this purpose. We are not at that stage yet. We are still in the process of gathering information and deliberating in preparation of what might become a consensus position. Should there be no consensus at that very point in time, we might have minority reports. Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 20.04.2015 um 16:12 schrieb Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I remain confused by Thomas' advice.
From the charter:
The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:
a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection
b) Consensus - a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree
I quite doubt that we shall need advice from our legal SubTeam what EACH POSITION means.
[...] In the absence of Full Consensus, the Chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report. [...]
I quite doubt that we shall need advice from our legal SubTeam whether an interim report is a report.
Oh, this reminds me, I want to join the Legal SubTeam.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-20 14:54, Thomas Rickert wrote: Dear Eberhard, it is not foreseen in our charter to have minority views for other scenarios than the consensus recommendations. I suggest you use the public comment period to voice your concerns or indicate your preference where our report is providing options as I am sure many of the colleagues in the CCWG and their respective groups will do.
Thomas
--- rickert.net <http://rickert.net> [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Eberhard, If I am not mistaken you are already part of the legal sub-team through its mailing list. If that is not the case, I will be glad to ask staff to have you subscribed to the list. Best regards, León
El 20/04/2015, a las 9:12, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I remain confused by Thomas' advice.
From the charter:
The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:
a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection
b) Consensus - a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree
I quite doubt that we shall need advice from our legal SubTeam what EACH POSITION means.
[...] In the absence of Full Consensus, the Chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report. [...]
I quite doubt that we shall need advice from our legal SubTeam whether an interim report is a report.
Oh, this reminds me, I want to join the Legal SubTeam.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-20 14:54, Thomas Rickert wrote:
Dear Eberhard, it is not foreseen in our charter to have minority views for other scenarios than the consensus recommendations. I suggest you use the public comment period to voice your concerns or indicate your preference where our report is providing options as I am sure many of the colleagues in the CCWG and their respective groups will do.
Thomas
--- rickert.net <http://rickert.net> [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co-Chairs Thomas and Mathieu, Your Co-Chair's understanding would the fall under the intercultural humor the Ombudsman advised against, at best. Under the Charter I as an apppointed member have the right to join every SubTeam, as a fully fledeged member, for the lack which inter alia means POSTING rights to the mailing list. So, please modify my read-only access accordingly. greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 20, 2015, at 15:46, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
If I am not mistaken you are already part of the legal sub-team through its mailing list. If that is not the case, I will be glad to ask staff to have you subscribed to the list.
Best regards,
León
Dear Eberhard, No need for sarcasm here. You can be as straight forward as anyone else in this list. All you need to do, if you want posting rights, is to ask for it as it is, in fact, an open group. If I recall well, you agreed to our working methods after a second reading in which we found you were in agreement to begin with. Best regards, León
El 20/04/2015, a las 11:31, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs Thomas and Mathieu,
Your Co-Chair's understanding would the fall under the intercultural humor the Ombudsman advised against, at best.
Under the Charter I as an apppointed member have the right to join every SubTeam, as a fully fledeged member, for the lack which inter alia means POSTING rights to the mailing list.
So, please modify my read-only access accordingly.
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 20, 2015, at 15:46, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
If I am not mistaken you are already part of the legal sub-team through its mailing list. If that is not the case, I will be glad to ask staff to have you subscribed to the list.
Best regards,
León
Dear Co-Chairs Thomas and Mathieu, Please inform your colleague that I can not find anything in the Charter about his needs assessment. The very objection I have is the breakneck pace so we can not even recall what actually happened. I also seem to recall that I already objected once already to another of the Co-Chairs, stating what amounts that previous agreement can never be changed afterwards, which obviously compounds the above error. The way I recall it was that decisions were going to be made in the plebum (main list) and only channeled through the Legal SubTeam, for effectiveness. Please point me to the two readings where I agreed that a participant from another SO or a SubTeam for that matter could remove questions that were added by a Co-Chair after passing the main mailing list, and which are of existential importance to the matters at hand. greetings, el On 2015-04-20 17:38 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
No need for sarcasm here. You can be as straight forward as anyone else in this list.
All you need to do, if you want posting rights, is to ask for it as it is, in fact, an open group.
If I recall well, you agreed to our working methods after a second reading in which we found you were in agreement to begin with.
Best regards,
León
El 20/04/2015, a las 11:31, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs Thomas and Mathieu,
Your Co-Chair's understanding would the fall under the intercultural humor the Ombudsman advised against, at best.
Under the Charter I as an appointed member have the right to join every SubTeam, as a fully fledged member, for the lack which inter alia means POSTING rights to the mailing list.
So, please modify my read-only access accordingly.
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 20, 2015, at 15:46, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
If I am not mistaken you are already part of the legal sub-team through its mailing list. If that is not the case, I will be glad to ask staff to have you subscribed to the list.
Best regards,
León
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Thomas It is a pity that there is no opportunity that minority from formal members of CCWG , s views could not be reflected in the report which could give the wrong impression that the output represent consensus. In ICG we have the opportunity to include minority views after several chair,s attempt ti resolve that Having said that it is necessary to indicate in the output dic.'that it does not represent the consensus Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Apr 2015, at 15:54, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Dear Eberhard, it is not foreseen in our charter to have minority views for other scenarios than the consensus recommendations. I suggest you use the public comment period to voice your concerns or indicate your preference where our report is providing options as I am sure many of the colleagues in the CCWG and their respective groups will do.
Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 20.04.2015 um 15:42 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs
indeed we do not have Consensus on the interim findings, so I intend to provide a minority viewpoint on the interim findings for public comment.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 20, 2015, at 14:35, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Dear Eberhard, please note that our group has not reached a consensus yet. As mentioned on numerous occasions during our calls, we plan to present our interim findings to the community and invite the community to comment.
The group will be alerted if and when we are asking for support with or objections to a set of recommendations that could form the consensus of the group. You will also be able to chime in when such final report is prepared for publication.
Thanks, Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 18.04.2015 um 12:28 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
please advise how I will be able to attach my dissenting minority report (objecting against process and (lack of) substance) so it can be publicly commented on.
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 18, 2015, at 10:10, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
All, please find attached the draft report with the input we got from the sub-teams. They can also be found at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. This is the frozen version of the document until our intensive two work days. Please note that you know most of the information already. We suggest you focus on the recommendations of WP1 and WP2, since the introductory part is primarily narrative and giving context. The stress test have been discussed quite extensively already. We are working on summaries or tables to make it easier for you to digest the information, but we wanted to get the frozen draft report out to you as soon as possible. Such additional materials will be worked on in collaboration with the rapporteurs to ensure that we provide information in a more handy while not misrepresenting interim work results.
Let us also use this opportunity to thank all of you, our fabulous rapporteurs and staff for their outstanding work and commitment.
Kindest regards, León, Mathieu and Thomas
<Appendices - 17 April.pdf> <CCWG-Report Draft v1.1.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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
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
Dear Kavouss, we will make unambiguously clear that we are not presenting a consensus position but that we are soliciting input from the community with this report we are currently preparing. Even more so, the report will likely present different options that have been discussed in the CCWG or in sub-teams, which makes it clear that the group has not made its conclusions yet. Kind regards, Thomas --- rickert.net
Am 20.04.2015 um 16:34 schrieb Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Thomas It is a pity that there is no opportunity that minority from formal members of CCWG , s views could not be reflected in the report which could give the wrong impression that the output represent consensus. In ICG we have the opportunity to include minority views after several chair,s attempt ti resolve that Having said that it is necessary to indicate in the output dic.'that it does not represent the consensus Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Apr 2015, at 15:54, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Dear Eberhard, it is not foreseen in our charter to have minority views for other scenarios than the consensus recommendations. I suggest you use the public comment period to voice your concerns or indicate your preference where our report is providing options as I am sure many of the colleagues in the CCWG and their respective groups will do.
Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 20.04.2015 um 15:42 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs
indeed we do not have Consensus on the interim findings, so I intend to provide a minority viewpoint on the interim findings for public comment.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 20, 2015, at 14:35, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Dear Eberhard, please note that our group has not reached a consensus yet. As mentioned on numerous occasions during our calls, we plan to present our interim findings to the community and invite the community to comment.
The group will be alerted if and when we are asking for support with or objections to a set of recommendations that could form the consensus of the group. You will also be able to chime in when such final report is prepared for publication.
Thanks, Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 18.04.2015 um 12:28 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
please advise how I will be able to attach my dissenting minority report (objecting against process and (lack of) substance) so it can be publicly commented on.
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 18, 2015, at 10:10, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
All, please find attached the draft report with the input we got from the sub-teams. They can also be found at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. This is the frozen version of the document until our intensive two work days. Please note that you know most of the information already. We suggest you focus on the recommendations of WP1 and WP2, since the introductory part is primarily narrative and giving context. The stress test have been discussed quite extensively already. We are working on summaries or tables to make it easier for you to digest the information, but we wanted to get the frozen draft report out to you as soon as possible. Such additional materials will be worked on in collaboration with the rapporteurs to ensure that we provide information in a more handy while not misrepresenting interim work results.
Let us also use this opportunity to thank all of you, our fabulous rapporteurs and staff for their outstanding work and commitment.
Kindest regards, León, Mathieu and Thomas
<Appendices - 17 April.pdf> <CCWG-Report Draft v1.1.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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
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
Dear Co-Chairs, Thogh Mr Arasteh is technically incorrect as the Charter is unequivocally clear, that it must be done, I find myself in agreement otherwise. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 20, 2015, at 15:34, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Thomas It is a pity that there is no opportunity that minority from formal members of CCWG , s views could not be reflected in the report which could give the wrong impression that the output represent consensus. In ICG we have the opportunity to include minority views after several chair,s attempt ti resolve that Having said that it is necessary to indicate in the output dic.'that it does not represent the consensus Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Apr 2015, at 15:54, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Dear Eberhard, it is not foreseen in our charter to have minority views for other scenarios than the consensus recommendations. I suggest you use the public comment period to voice your concerns or indicate your preference where our report is providing options as I am sure many of the colleagues in the CCWG and their respective groups will do.
Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 20.04.2015 um 15:42 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs
indeed we do not have Consensus on the interim findings, so I intend to provide a minority viewpoint on the interim findings for public comment.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 20, 2015, at 14:35, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Dear Eberhard, please note that our group has not reached a consensus yet. As mentioned on numerous occasions during our calls, we plan to present our interim findings to the community and invite the community to comment.
The group will be alerted if and when we are asking for support with or objections to a set of recommendations that could form the consensus of the group. You will also be able to chime in when such final report is prepared for publication.
Thanks, Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 18.04.2015 um 12:28 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
please advise how I will be able to attach my dissenting minority report (objecting against process and (lack of) substance) so it can be publicly commented on.
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 18, 2015, at 10:10, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
All, please find attached the draft report with the input we got from the sub-teams. They can also be found at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. This is the frozen version of the document until our intensive two work days. Please note that you know most of the information already. We suggest you focus on the recommendations of WP1 and WP2, since the introductory part is primarily narrative and giving context. The stress test have been discussed quite extensively already. We are working on summaries or tables to make it easier for you to digest the information, but we wanted to get the frozen draft report out to you as soon as possible. Such additional materials will be worked on in collaboration with the rapporteurs to ensure that we provide information in a more handy while not misrepresenting interim work results.
Let us also use this opportunity to thank all of you, our fabulous rapporteurs and staff for their outstanding work and commitment.
Kindest regards, León, Mathieu and Thomas
<Appendices - 17 April.pdf> <CCWG-Report Draft v1.1.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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
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
Main comment is on the reconsideration request (RfR) process. It appears greatly expanded. It is now involving the Board and Ombudsman for all RfRs, and scope for what is an acceptable RfR is much broader. A 120 decision is also much longer than most RfRs are taking. The Ombudsman is currently one human with little budget. There is simply no way his/her office could handle 60+ RfR per year. One could expect regular RfR challenges of ICANN policy decisions, plus regular challenges of ICANN new gTLD or any TLD decisions as a result. Keep in mind ICANN envisions a rolling new gTLD programme, with continued applications over time. One could reasonably expect upwards of 100 RfR per year under this proposed model. Moreover, it is unclear how it interacts with a standard Ombudsman complaint process, the DIDP, or the CEP/IRP. This is because at no point is the 'end to end' appeals / accountability process described. This report - or the final version - should include a clear road map with case examples of complaints going through the process with a worst case scenario explored and considered by this group before being finalised. In other words, this looks like a good description of the parts of the animal, but gives me little clue what the animal looks like. Hopefully that's the next stage of the work. Jacob Malthouse Co-founder & Director, Big Room Inc. 778-960-6527 www.bigroom.ca On 20 April 2015 at 09:38, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Thogh Mr Arasteh is technically incorrect as the Charter is unequivocally clear, that it must be done, I find myself in agreement otherwise.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 20, 2015, at 15:34, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Thomas It is a pity that there is no opportunity that minority from formal members of CCWG , s views could not be reflected in the report which could give the wrong impression that the output represent consensus. In ICG we have the opportunity to include minority views after several chair,s attempt ti resolve that Having said that it is necessary to indicate in the output dic.'that it does not represent the consensus Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Apr 2015, at 15:54, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Dear Eberhard, it is not foreseen in our charter to have minority views for other scenarios than the consensus recommendations. I suggest you use the public comment period to voice your concerns or indicate your preference where our report is providing options as I am sure many of the colleagues in the CCWG and their respective groups will do.
Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 20.04.2015 um 15:42 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs
indeed we do not have Consensus on the interim findings, so I intend to provide a minority viewpoint on the interim findings for public comment.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 20, 2015, at 14:35, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Dear Eberhard, please note that our group has not reached a consensus yet. As mentioned on numerous occasions during our calls, we plan to present our interim findings to the community and invite the community to comment.
The group will be alerted if and when we are asking for support with or objections to a set of recommendations that could form the consensus of the group. You will also be able to chime in when such final report is prepared for publication.
Thanks, Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 18.04.2015 um 12:28 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
please advise how I will be able to attach my dissenting minority report (objecting against process and (lack of) substance) so it can be publicly commented on.
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 18, 2015, at 10:10, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
All, please find attached the draft report with the input we got from the sub-teams. They can also be found at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. This is the frozen version of the document until our intensive two work days. Please note that you know most of the information already. We suggest you focus on the recommendations of WP1 and WP2, since the introductory part is primarily narrative and giving context. The stress test have been discussed quite extensively already. We are working on summaries or tables to make it easier for you to digest the information, but we wanted to get the frozen draft report out to you as soon as possible. Such additional materials will be worked on in collaboration with the rapporteurs to ensure that we provide information in a more handy while not misrepresenting interim work results.
Let us also use this opportunity to thank all of you, our fabulous rapporteurs and staff for their outstanding work and commitment.
Kindest regards, León, Mathieu and Thomas
<Appendices - 17 April.pdf>
<CCWG-Report Draft v1.1.pdf>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Kavouss and Eberhard, the e-mails that have been exchanged on this all need to be read in context. In summary: - There will be the opportunity to file minority statements when the CCWG publishes consensus recommendations it has worked on. - The CCWG is now in a phase where interim findings will be presented to the community for input. These are not consensus recommendations. The chairs have not determined the consensus level in the group. - In the absence of a consensus determination, the rules of the Charter are not applicable at this stage. I hope this clarifies the situation. Thomas --- rickert.net
Am 20.04.2015 um 18:38 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Thogh Mr Arasteh is technically incorrect as the Charter is unequivocally clear, that it must be done, I find myself in agreement otherwise.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 20, 2015, at 15:34, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Thomas It is a pity that there is no opportunity that minority from formal members of CCWG , s views could not be reflected in the report which could give the wrong impression that the output represent consensus. In ICG we have the opportunity to include minority views after several chair,s attempt ti resolve that Having said that it is necessary to indicate in the output dic.'that it does not represent the consensus Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Apr 2015, at 15:54, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Dear Eberhard, it is not foreseen in our charter to have minority views for other scenarios than the consensus recommendations. I suggest you use the public comment period to voice your concerns or indicate your preference where our report is providing options as I am sure many of the colleagues in the CCWG and their respective groups will do.
Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 20.04.2015 um 15:42 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs
indeed we do not have Consensus on the interim findings, so I intend to provide a minority viewpoint on the interim findings for public comment.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 20, 2015, at 14:35, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Dear Eberhard, please note that our group has not reached a consensus yet. As mentioned on numerous occasions during our calls, we plan to present our interim findings to the community and invite the community to comment.
The group will be alerted if and when we are asking for support with or objections to a set of recommendations that could form the consensus of the group. You will also be able to chime in when such final report is prepared for publication.
Thanks, Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 18.04.2015 um 12:28 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
please advise how I will be able to attach my dissenting minority report (objecting against process and (lack of) substance) so it can be publicly commented on.
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
> On Apr 18, 2015, at 10:10, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote: > > All, > please find attached the draft report with the input we got from the sub-teams. They can also be found at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. This is the frozen version of the document until our intensive two work days. Please note that you know most of the information already. We suggest you focus on the recommendations of WP1 and WP2, since the introductory part is primarily narrative and giving context. The stress test have been discussed quite extensively already. We are working on summaries or tables to make it easier for you to digest the information, but we wanted to get the frozen draft report out to you as soon as possible. > Such additional materials will be worked on in collaboration with the rapporteurs to ensure that we provide information in a more handy while not misrepresenting interim work results. > > Let us also use this opportunity to thank all of you, our fabulous rapporteurs and staff for their outstanding work and commitment. > > Kindest regards, > León, Mathieu and Thomas > > > <Appendices - 17 April.pdf> > <CCWG-Report Draft v1.1.pdf> > _______________________________________________ > 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
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
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co-Chairs Leon and Mathieu, Indeed when reading this in perspective, your colleague previously stated that the Charter does not foresee minority statements and now your colleague states that the Charter does not apply (probably he has read the Charter now, where it CLEARLY states that each position must be declared Full Consensus or Consensus, and for each report where there is less than Full Consensus, minority viewpoints must be included, if any) defies comprehension. THE. CHARTER. DOES. APPLY. AT. ANY. STAGE! To state that the Consensus Level has not been established, is peculiar, since Full Consensus is defined in the Charter, and we do NOT have it. One can not present an Interim Report for Public Comment without stating the Consensus Level. I renew my objection and the chair and vice-chairs of the ccNSO Council read in copy, because if (in the eyes of a Co-Chair) the Charter does not apply, ccNSO as chartering organization needs to know. Never mind that it will cast reflection on the Interim Report and the CCWG Accountability. Nor the motivation. Not that I did not predict something like this right from the start, by the way. Bart, please forward to the Council List, as I can not post to it. greetings, el On 2015-04-21 09:33, Thomas Rickert wrote:
Dear Kavouss and Eberhard, the e-mails that have been exchanged on this all need to be read in context. In summary:
- There will be the opportunity to file minority statements when the CCWG publishes consensus recommendations it has worked on.
- The CCWG is now in a phase where interim findings will be presented to the community for input. These are not consensus recommendations. The chairs have not determined the consensus level in the group.
- In the absence of a consensus determination, the rules of the Charter are not applicable at this stage.
I hope this clarifies the situation.
Thomas
--- rickert.net <http://rickert.net> [...]
On 20 Apr 2015, at 15:54, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> wrote:
Dear Eberhard, it is not foreseen in our charter to have minority views for other scenarios than the consensus recommendations. I suggest you use the public comment period to voice your concerns or indicate your preference where our report is providing options as I am sure many of the colleagues in the CCWG and their respective groups will do.
Thomas
--- rickert.net <http://rickert.net> [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Dear Thomas Thank you in confirming that the minority position could be reflected in the report Whatt you are saying is ,at this stage, we are not formulating any consensus on any issue. Just we are submitting a preliminary output on which there is been no attempt for consensus .Then THIS NON Consensus status of the document SHOULD BE EXPLICITLY REFLECTED IN THE DOCUMENT SENT FOR PUBKLIC COMMENT. Regrads Kavouss 2015-04-21 10:33 GMT+02:00 Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>:
Dear Kavouss and Eberhard, the e-mails that have been exchanged on this all need to be read in context. In summary:
- There will be the opportunity to file minority statements when the CCWG publishes consensus recommendations it has worked on.
- The CCWG is now in a phase where interim findings will be presented to the community for input. These are not consensus recommendations. The chairs have not determined the consensus level in the group.
- In the absence of a consensus determination, the rules of the Charter are not applicable at this stage.
I hope this clarifies the situation.
Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 20.04.2015 um 18:38 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Thogh Mr Arasteh is technically incorrect as the Charter is unequivocally clear, that it must be done, I find myself in agreement otherwise.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 20, 2015, at 15:34, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Thomas It is a pity that there is no opportunity that minority from formal members of CCWG , s views could not be reflected in the report which could give the wrong impression that the output represent consensus. In ICG we have the opportunity to include minority views after several chair,s attempt ti resolve that Having said that it is necessary to indicate in the output dic.'that it does not represent the consensus Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Apr 2015, at 15:54, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Dear Eberhard, it is not foreseen in our charter to have minority views for other scenarios than the consensus recommendations. I suggest you use the public comment period to voice your concerns or indicate your preference where our report is providing options as I am sure many of the colleagues in the CCWG and their respective groups will do.
Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 20.04.2015 um 15:42 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs
indeed we do not have Consensus on the interim findings, so I intend to provide a minority viewpoint on the interim findings for public comment.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 20, 2015, at 14:35, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Dear Eberhard, please note that our group has not reached a consensus yet. As mentioned on numerous occasions during our calls, we plan to present our interim findings to the community and invite the community to comment.
The group will be alerted if and when we are asking for support with or objections to a set of recommendations that could form the consensus of the group. You will also be able to chime in when such final report is prepared for publication.
Thanks, Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 18.04.2015 um 12:28 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
please advise how I will be able to attach my dissenting minority report (objecting against process and (lack of) substance) so it can be publicly commented on.
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 18, 2015, at 10:10, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
All, please find attached the draft report with the input we got from the sub-teams. They can also be found at https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. This is the frozen version of the document until our intensive two work days. Please note that you know most of the information already. We suggest you focus on the recommendations of WP1 and WP2, since the introductory part is primarily narrative and giving context. The stress test have been discussed quite extensively already. We are working on summaries or tables to make it easier for you to digest the information, but we wanted to get the frozen draft report out to you as soon as possible. Such additional materials will be worked on in collaboration with the rapporteurs to ensure that we provide information in a more handy while not misrepresenting interim work results.
Let us also use this opportunity to thank all of you, our fabulous rapporteurs and staff for their outstanding work and commitment.
Kindest regards, León, Mathieu and Thomas
<Appendices - 17 April.pdf>
<CCWG-Report Draft v1.1.pdf>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Co-Chairs, Though I stand my ground here, I find Mr Arasteh's suggestion helpful. greetings, el On 2015-04-21 10:49, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Thomas Thank you in confirming that the minority position could be reflected in the report Whatt you are saying is ,at this stage, we are not formulating any consensus on any issue. Just we are submitting a preliminary output on which there is been no attempt for consensus .Then THIS NON Consensus status of the document SHOULD BE EXPLICITLY REFLECTED IN THE DOCUMENT SENT FOR PUBKLIC COMMENT. Regrads Kavouss
2015-04-21 10:33 GMT+02:00 Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>:
Dear Kavouss and Eberhard, the e-mails that have been exchanged on this all need to be read in context. In summary:
- There will be the opportunity to file minority statements when the CCWG publishes consensus recommendations it has worked on.
- The CCWG is now in a phase where interim findings will be presented to the community for input. These are not consensus recommendations. The chairs have not determined the consensus level in the group.
- In the absence of a consensus determination, the rules of the Charter are not applicable at this stage.
I hope this clarifies the situation.
Thomas
--- rickert.net <http://rickert.net>
Dear Eberhard, all, for the sake of clarity I have pasted my e-mail sent to the list yesterday below: *** Dear Kavouss, we will make unambiguously clear that we are not presenting a consensus position but that we are soliciting input from the community with this report we are currently preparing. Even more so, the report will likely present different options that have been discussed in the CCWG or in sub-teams, which makes it clear that the group has not made its conclusions yet. Kind regards, Thomas *** Rest assured we will stick to this. Best, Thomas --- rickert.net
Am 21.04.2015 um 12:14 schrieb Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Though I stand my ground here, I find Mr Arasteh's suggestion helpful.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-21 10:49, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Thomas Thank you in confirming that the minority position could be reflected in the report Whatt you are saying is ,at this stage, we are not formulating any consensus on any issue. Just we are submitting a preliminary output on which there is been no attempt for consensus .Then THIS NON Consensus status of the document SHOULD BE EXPLICITLY REFLECTED IN THE DOCUMENT SENT FOR PUBKLIC COMMENT. Regrads Kavouss
2015-04-21 10:33 GMT+02:00 Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>:
Dear Kavouss and Eberhard, the e-mails that have been exchanged on this all need to be read in context. In summary:
- There will be the opportunity to file minority statements when the CCWG publishes consensus recommendations it has worked on.
- The CCWG is now in a phase where interim findings will be presented to the community for input. These are not consensus recommendations. The chairs have not determined the consensus level in the group.
- In the absence of a consensus determination, the rules of the Charter are not applicable at this stage.
I hope this clarifies the situation.
Thomas
--- rickert.net <http://rickert.net>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (7)
-
Dr Eberhard Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
-
Jacob Malthouse -
Kavouss Arasteh -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Thomas Rickert -
Thomas Rickert