Dear all, As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group. There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw <https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw>). We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0... <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0...>. While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process. It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process. We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group. Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule. As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly. Thank you, Thomas, León, Mathieu CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
Dear Co-Chairs Here it is 0340UTC and I am still following all exchanged e-mails. Some of them promising and some other disappointing The Co-Chairs decision to hold on the forwarding the final report till the issue of threshold is resolved is the most WISE and the most appropriate decision. I fully support it . Good luck for CCWG call on 26 Feb. Regards Kavouss 2016-02-20 1:19 GMT+01:00 León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>:
Dear all,
As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group.
There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0....
While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process.
It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process.
We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group.
Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule.
As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly.
Thank you,
Thomas, León, Mathieu
*CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
The next call is on 23 February at 0600 UTC. On Friday, February 19, 2016, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs
Here it is 0340UTC and I am still following all exchanged e-mails.
Some of them promising and some other disappointing
The Co-Chairs decision to hold on the forwarding the final report till the issue of threshold is resolved is the most WISE and the most appropriate decision.
I fully support it .
Good luck for CCWG call on 26 Feb.
Regards
Kavouss
2016-02-20 1:19 GMT+01:00 León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','leonfelipe@sanchez.mx');>>:
Dear all,
As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group.
There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0....
While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process.
It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process.
We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group.
Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule.
As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly.
Thank you,
Thomas, León, Mathieu
*CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Leon, I appreciate the enormous pressure you, Thomas and Mathieu must be under at this point. Thanks for your continued hard work. I appreciate your considered response but I must admit that it saddens me. ?The Charter does not envision Board direction at this point in the process. By changing our timeline, by allowing the Board to dictate procedure rather than provide input at the appropriate times (which were in the past and future but not now) you've made me question whether ICANN as a whole has reached the maturity necessary to be given independence. We really do appear to be a group run by personality and opportunity rather than by rule and structure. That's not the type of organisation I believe should be granted a completely independent role with an expanded function in maintaining the security and structure of the DNS. I hope future events provide me an opportunity to reconsider this preliminary evaluation. For those trying to make sense of the specific substantive issues at play here I highly recommend Andrew Sullivan's post at 02:17 UTC today entitled 'Clarification'. Although I disagree with certain opinions expressed by Andrew, I found his explanations of the substantive issues involved to be exceptionally well done. Thank you Andrew. Sad. Just sad. ?Kind Regards, Edward Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 12:22 AM To: "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@icann.org)" <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Normal 0 21 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE Dear all, As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group. There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0.... While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process. It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process. We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday's CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group. Until the Tuesday call, let's keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule. As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other's value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly. Thank you, Thomas, León, Mathieu CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
Leon: The answer is simple: No. We do not accept your attempt to cave in to political manipulation of the process by the board Nothing else needs to be said. If you allow this to happen, there will be additional minority statements and increasing dissent. Do not allow the board to hijack the process once again. --MM ________________________________ From: "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 12:22 AM To: "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>)" <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear all, As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group. There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0.... While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process. It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process. We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday's CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group. Until the Tuesday call, let's keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule. As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other's value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly. Thank you, Thomas, León, Mathieu CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
I wonder if an objective, independent analysis from the external legal counsel (or based on their already extensive assessments) would help to focus the real impact/change from status quo of the contentious part of the proposal? This could permit all members, participants and, in particular those who have not had the "advantage" of following the discussions in detail to analyse the relative impact from their perspectives. Megan Sent from my iPad On 20 Feb 2016, at 01:22, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Dear all, As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group. There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0.... While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process. It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process. We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group. Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule. As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly. Thank you, Thomas, León, Mathieu CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Objective, independent analysis are always an excellent approach And, if it could be available by Marrakech, it could also help to inform ALL of the community. Members and Participants are probably well deluged by the emails, but the larger community, who really needs to understand, would benefit from such an approach. M From: Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu To: leonfelipe@sanchez.mx Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 17:44:04 +0000 CC: acct-staff@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs I wonder if an objective, independent analysis from the external legal counsel (or based on their already extensive assessments) would help to focus the real impact/change from status quo of the contentious part of the proposal? This could permit all members, participants and, in particular those who have not had the "advantage" of following the discussions in detail to analyse the relative impact from their perspectives. Megan Sent from my iPad On 20 Feb 2016, at 01:22, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote: Dear all, As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group. There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0.... While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process. It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process. We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group. Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule. As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly. Thank you, Thomas, León, Mathieu CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ 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
Fully agree regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 20.02.2016 um 18:58 schrieb Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>>: Objective, independent analysis are always an excellent approach And, if it could be available by Marrakech, it could also help to inform ALL of the community. Members and Participants are probably well deluged by the emails, but the larger community, who really needs to understand, would benefit from such an approach. M ________________________________ From: Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu<mailto:Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu> To: leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 17:44:04 +0000 CC: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs I wonder if an objective, independent analysis from the external legal counsel (or based on their already extensive assessments) would help to focus the real impact/change from status quo of the contentious part of the proposal? This could permit all members, participants and, in particular those who have not had the "advantage" of following the discussions in detail to analyse the relative impact from their perspectives. Megan Sent from my iPad On 20 Feb 2016, at 01:22, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Dear all, As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group. There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0.... While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process. It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process. We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group. Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule. As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly. Thank you, Thomas, León, Mathieu CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 Marylin Rafael Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse brevity and typos. -------- Original message -------- From: Marilyn Cade Date:20/02/2016 18:58 (GMT+01:00) To: "Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu" , leonfelipe@sanchez.mx Cc: acct-staff@icann.org, accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Objective, independent analysis are always an excellent approach And, if it could be available by Marrakech, it could also help to inform ALL of the community. Members and Participants are probably well deluged by the emails, but the larger community, who really needs to understand, would benefit from such an approach. M ________________________________ From: Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu To: leonfelipe@sanchez.mx Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 17:44:04 +0000 CC: acct-staff@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs I wonder if an objective, independent analysis from the external legal counsel (or based on their already extensive assessments) would help to focus the real impact/change from status quo of the contentious part of the proposal? This could permit all members, participants and, in particular those who have not had the "advantage" of following the discussions in detail to analyse the relative impact from their perspectives. Megan Sent from my iPad On 20 Feb 2016, at 01:22, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Dear all, As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group. There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0.... While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process. It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process. We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group. Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule. As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly. Thank you, Thomas, León, Mathieu CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto: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
+ 1 to Marylin specially with: "Members and Participants are probably well deluged by the emails, but the larger community, who really needs to understand, would benefit from such an approach." best Olga
El 20 feb 2016, a las 2:56 p.m., Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> escribió:
Objective, independent analysis are always an excellent approach
And, if it could be available by Marrakech, it could also help to inform ALL of the community.
Members and Participants are probably well deluged by the emails, but the larger community, who really needs to understand, would benefit from such an approach.
M
From: Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu To: leonfelipe@sanchez.mx Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 17:44:04 +0000 CC: acct-staff@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
I wonder if an objective, independent analysis from the external legal counsel (or based on their already extensive assessments) would help to focus the real impact/change from status quo of the contentious part of the proposal? This could permit all members, participants and, in particular those who have not had the "advantage" of following the discussions in detail to analyse the relative impact from their perspectives.
Megan
Sent from my iPad
On 20 Feb 2016, at 01:22, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group.
There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0....
While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process.
It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process.
We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group.
Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule.
As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly.
Thank you,
Thomas, León, Mathieu
CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ 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
It is not even slightly clear why any such analysis would help with the current discussion. And it is very clear that keeping an item open to Marrakech is the wrong thing to do. We are talking about a very narrow point in a broader very simple situation: where GAC chooses to exercise its right to offer consensus advice, which comes with an obligation on ICANN to try and find a mutually agreeable path if disagreement arises. The working group has agreed that GAC, being uniquely empowered with that right, should not also be able to make decisions on community powers that relate to decisions related to that advice. So far, so good. The carve out. For a rare situation. Then, to preserve a non-unanimity rule, some adjustments were made to the thresholds to assess community support / opposition in those cases. Those have been clearly documented by Becky. So having done all that, it appears there is now some confusion about what was agreed. All that needs to be found (all - hah!) is a path back to closure. But let's be clear. We are once again after the end of this process re-opening something at the behest of ICANN's board, with messages that were not clear and seek to second guess the work of the CCWG. The completion of the group's work in times for Marrakech is therefore at risk, again (last time it meant Dublin was at risk). All I want is for people to take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions. For me, as a voting member of the ccwg, I will go with whatever approach closes this out as quickly as possible. But I am no longer confident that that will be quick enough to salvage this process. An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of delay. I also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive question raised, but perhaps, Megan, you could set out how it might? Cheers Jordan On Sunday, 21 February 2016, <Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu> wrote:
I wonder if an objective, independent analysis from the external legal counsel (or based on their already extensive assessments) would help to focus the real impact/change from status quo of the contentious part of the proposal? This could permit all members, participants and, in particular those who have not had the "advantage" of following the discussions in detail to analyse the relative impact from their perspectives.
Megan
Sent from my iPad
On 20 Feb 2016, at 01:22, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','leonfelipe@sanchez.mx');>> wrote:
Dear all,
As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group.
There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0....
While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process.
It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process.
We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group.
Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule.
As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly.
Thank you,
Thomas, León, Mathieu
*CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
On 20 Feb 2016 9:17 p.m., "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
It is not even slightly clear why any such analysis would help with the
current discussion. And it is very clear that keeping an item open to Marrakech is the wrong thing to do.
FWIW, I agree with this, unless we don't want the transition to get through. Noting should be open at Marrakesh as the SO/AC should just be there to consider and accept or reject the proposal as per the timeline.
Then, to preserve a non-unanimity rule, some adjustments were made to the
thresholds to assess community support / opposition in those cases. Those have been clearly documented by Becky.
SO: Documented is the right word but whether it's been agreed upon is another thing entirely.
So having done all that, it appears there is now some confusion about
what was agreed.
All that needs to be found (all - hah!) is a path back to closure.
SO: +1 and IMO it's good to have this clarified and closed now in the interest of delivering at Marrakesh.
But let's be clear. We are once again after the end of this process re-opening something at the behest of ICANN's board, with messages that were not clear and seek to second guess the work of the CCWG.
SO: No idea why things are read this way even though you acknowledged that there is indeed confusion and even though there has been ample comment shared before the board's. What perhaps is disappointing is that it takes the board to bring us to reconsideration especially when some participants have raised adequate concern. .
For me, as a voting member of the ccwg, I will go with whatever approach
closes this out as quickly as possible. But I am no longer confident that that will be quick enough to salvage this process.
SO: Thanks for the openness, let us be positive and this would go smoothly, we need to address this with an open mind and not be rigid about it. Irrespective of the current proposal completing in Marrakesh, the transition has been doubtful for me since we missed September. Regards
An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of delay. I also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive question raised, but perhaps, Megan, you could set out how it might?
Cheers Jordan
On Sunday, 21 February 2016, <Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu> wrote:
I wonder if an objective, independent analysis from the external legal
counsel (or based on their already extensive assessments) would help to focus the real impact/change from status quo of the contentious part of the proposal? This could permit all members, participants and, in particular those who have not had the "advantage" of following the discussions in detail to analyse the relative impact from their perspectives.
Megan
Sent from my iPad
On 20 Feb 2016, at 01:22, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <
leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19
February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group.
There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for
Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority
statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0... .
While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for
those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process.
It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published
the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process.
We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report
to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group.
Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on
our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule.
As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every
Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly.
Thank you,
Thomas, León, Mathieu
CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Jordan: I am in full agreement with your statement: An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of delay. I also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive question raised… Indeed, seeking such an analysis is likely to add even further delay. We are already far past the timeline we were originally told must be adhered for completion of the Final Report to allow for the necessary review by the NTIA and other USG agencies, as well as for Congressional oversight of the transition and accountability proposals, and to thereby avoid the necessity for a further extension of the IANA contract past September 30, 2016. The Chartering Organizations, including the GNSO, already faced substantial challenges in completing their review and providing well considered positions on the twelve separate recommendations by March 9th – and that was before being informed by the Co-Chairs yesterday that delivery of the Final Report will be delayed by a minimum of five additional days. I believe that the community has all the information required to resolve the remaining issue and that there is no need for additional legal analysis; and that community members who are unclear on the details of the present debate can obtain it from both their official chartering organization representative or from other active CCWG participants in whom they place trust. Regards to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 3:17 PM To: Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu Cc: acct-staff@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs It is not even slightly clear why any such analysis would help with the current discussion. And it is very clear that keeping an item open to Marrakech is the wrong thing to do. We are talking about a very narrow point in a broader very simple situation: where GAC chooses to exercise its right to offer consensus advice, which comes with an obligation on ICANN to try and find a mutually agreeable path if disagreement arises. The working group has agreed that GAC, being uniquely empowered with that right, should not also be able to make decisions on community powers that relate to decisions related to that advice. So far, so good. The carve out. For a rare situation. Then, to preserve a non-unanimity rule, some adjustments were made to the thresholds to assess community support / opposition in those cases. Those have been clearly documented by Becky. So having done all that, it appears there is now some confusion about what was agreed. All that needs to be found (all - hah!) is a path back to closure. But let's be clear. We are once again after the end of this process re-opening something at the behest of ICANN's board, with messages that were not clear and seek to second guess the work of the CCWG. The completion of the group's work in times for Marrakech is therefore at risk, again (last time it meant Dublin was at risk). All I want is for people to take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions. For me, as a voting member of the ccwg, I will go with whatever approach closes this out as quickly as possible. But I am no longer confident that that will be quick enough to salvage this process. An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of delay. I also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive question raised, but perhaps, Megan, you could set out how it might? Cheers Jordan On Sunday, 21 February 2016, <Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu<mailto:Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu>> wrote: I wonder if an objective, independent analysis from the external legal counsel (or based on their already extensive assessments) would help to focus the real impact/change from status quo of the contentious part of the proposal? This could permit all members, participants and, in particular those who have not had the "advantage" of following the discussions in detail to analyse the relative impact from their perspectives. Megan Sent from my iPad On 20 Feb 2016, at 01:22, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','leonfelipe@sanchez.mx');>> wrote: Dear all, As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group. There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0.... While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process. It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process. We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group. Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule. As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly. Thank you, Thomas, León, Mathieu CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
Hi, No matter what I think about the acceptability of one more compromise, I agree that it is time to move one and finish. More studies are not going to make this issue any clearer. If we are unable to accept the Board's suggestion, then we should just leave it to them to add yet one more 'minority' opinion to the report. avri On 20-Feb-16 22:41, Phil Corwin wrote:
Jordan:
I am in full agreement with your statement:
An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of delay. I also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive question raised…
Indeed, seeking such an analysis is likely to add even further delay.
We are already far past the timeline we were originally told must be adhered for completion of the Final Report to allow for the necessary review by the NTIA and other USG agencies, as well as for Congressional oversight of the transition and accountability proposals, and to thereby avoid the necessity for a further extension of the IANA contract past September 30, 2016. The Chartering Organizations, including the GNSO, already faced substantial challenges in completing their review and providing well considered positions on the twelve separate recommendations by March 9th – and that was before being informed by the Co-Chairs yesterday that delivery of the Final Report will be delayed by a minimum of five additional days.
I believe that the community has all the information required to resolve the remaining issue and that there is no need for additional legal analysis; and that community members who are unclear on the details of the present debate can obtain it from both their official chartering organization representative or from other active CCWG participants in whom they place trust.
Regards to all,
Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/cell***
* *
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter *Sent:* Saturday, February 20, 2016 3:17 PM *To:* Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
It is not even slightly clear why any such analysis would help with the current discussion. And it is very clear that keeping an item open to Marrakech is the wrong thing to do.
We are talking about a very narrow point in a broader very simple situation: where GAC chooses to exercise its right to offer consensus advice, which comes with an obligation on ICANN to try and find a mutually agreeable path if disagreement arises.
The working group has agreed that GAC, being uniquely empowered with that right, should not also be able to make decisions on community powers that relate to decisions related to that advice. So far, so good. The carve out. For a rare situation.
Then, to preserve a non-unanimity rule, some adjustments were made to the thresholds to assess community support / opposition in those cases. Those have been clearly documented by Becky.
So having done all that, it appears there is now some confusion about what was agreed.
All that needs to be found (all - hah!) is a path back to closure.
But let's be clear. We are once again after the end of this process re-opening something at the behest of ICANN's board, with messages that were not clear and seek to second guess the work of the CCWG. The completion of the group's work in times for Marrakech is therefore at risk, again (last time it meant Dublin was at risk).
All I want is for people to take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.
For me, as a voting member of the ccwg, I will go with whatever approach closes this out as quickly as possible. But I am no longer confident that that will be quick enough to salvage this process.
An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of delay. I also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive question raised, but perhaps, Megan, you could set out how it might?
Cheers
Jordan
On Sunday, 21 February 2016, <Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu <mailto:Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu>> wrote:
I wonder if an objective, independent analysis from the external legal counsel (or based on their already extensive assessments) would help to focus the real impact/change from status quo of the contentious part of the proposal? This could permit all members, participants and, in particular those who have not had the "advantage" of following the discussions in detail to analyse the relative impact from their perspectives.
Megan
Sent from my iPad
On 20 Feb 2016, at 01:22, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','leonfelipe@sanchez.mx');>> wrote:
Dear all,
As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group.
There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0....
While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process.
It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process.
We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group.
Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule.
As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly.
Thank you,
Thomas, León, Mathieu
/CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs/
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
+1 Avri. -James On 20/02/2016, 8:58 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Avri Doria" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
No matter what I think about the acceptability of one more compromise, I agree that it is time to move one and finish. More studies are not going to make this issue any clearer.
If we are unable to accept the Board's suggestion, then we should just leave it to them to add yet one more 'minority' opinion to the report.
avri
On 20-Feb-16 22:41, Phil Corwin wrote:
Jordan:
I am in full agreement with your statement:
An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of delay. I also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive question raised…
Indeed, seeking such an analysis is likely to add even further delay.
We are already far past the timeline we were originally told must be adhered for completion of the Final Report to allow for the necessary review by the NTIA and other USG agencies, as well as for Congressional oversight of the transition and accountability proposals, and to thereby avoid the necessity for a further extension of the IANA contract past September 30, 2016. The Chartering Organizations, including the GNSO, already faced substantial challenges in completing their review and providing well considered positions on the twelve separate recommendations by March 9th – and that was before being informed by the Co-Chairs yesterday that delivery of the Final Report will be delayed by a minimum of five additional days.
I believe that the community has all the information required to resolve the remaining issue and that there is no need for additional legal analysis; and that community members who are unclear on the details of the present debate can obtain it from both their official chartering organization representative or from other active CCWG participants in whom they place trust.
Regards to all,
Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/cell***
* *
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter *Sent:* Saturday, February 20, 2016 3:17 PM *To:* Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
It is not even slightly clear why any such analysis would help with the current discussion. And it is very clear that keeping an item open to Marrakech is the wrong thing to do.
We are talking about a very narrow point in a broader very simple situation: where GAC chooses to exercise its right to offer consensus advice, which comes with an obligation on ICANN to try and find a mutually agreeable path if disagreement arises.
The working group has agreed that GAC, being uniquely empowered with that right, should not also be able to make decisions on community powers that relate to decisions related to that advice. So far, so good. The carve out. For a rare situation.
Then, to preserve a non-unanimity rule, some adjustments were made to the thresholds to assess community support / opposition in those cases. Those have been clearly documented by Becky.
So having done all that, it appears there is now some confusion about what was agreed.
All that needs to be found (all - hah!) is a path back to closure.
But let's be clear. We are once again after the end of this process re-opening something at the behest of ICANN's board, with messages that were not clear and seek to second guess the work of the CCWG. The completion of the group's work in times for Marrakech is therefore at risk, again (last time it meant Dublin was at risk).
All I want is for people to take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.
For me, as a voting member of the ccwg, I will go with whatever approach closes this out as quickly as possible. But I am no longer confident that that will be quick enough to salvage this process.
An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of delay. I also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive question raised, but perhaps, Megan, you could set out how it might?
Cheers
Jordan
On Sunday, 21 February 2016, <Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu <mailto:Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu>> wrote:
I wonder if an objective, independent analysis from the external legal counsel (or based on their already extensive assessments) would help to focus the real impact/change from status quo of the contentious part of the proposal? This could permit all members, participants and, in particular those who have not had the "advantage" of following the discussions in detail to analyse the relative impact from their perspectives.
Megan
Sent from my iPad
On 20 Feb 2016, at 01:22, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','leonfelipe@sanchez.mx');>> wrote:
Dear all,
As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group.
There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0....
While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process.
It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process.
We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group.
Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule.
As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly.
Thank you,
Thomas, León, Mathieu
/CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs/
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All, I am sure the Board would include its concerns if CCWG ignore to consider that concern It id not Minority statement . Board should not be labelled as Minority. Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Feb 2016, at 21:58, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
No matter what I think about the acceptability of one more compromise, I agree that it is time to move one and finish. More studies are not going to make this issue any clearer.
If we are unable to accept the Board's suggestion, then we should just leave it to them to add yet one more 'minority' opinion to the report.
avri
On 20-Feb-16 22:41, Phil Corwin wrote:
Jordan:
I am in full agreement with your statement:
An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of delay. I also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive question raised…
Indeed, seeking such an analysis is likely to add even further delay.
We are already far past the timeline we were originally told must be adhered for completion of the Final Report to allow for the necessary review by the NTIA and other USG agencies, as well as for Congressional oversight of the transition and accountability proposals, and to thereby avoid the necessity for a further extension of the IANA contract past September 30, 2016. The Chartering Organizations, including the GNSO, already faced substantial challenges in completing their review and providing well considered positions on the twelve separate recommendations by March 9th – and that was before being informed by the Co-Chairs yesterday that delivery of the Final Report will be delayed by a minimum of five additional days.
I believe that the community has all the information required to resolve the remaining issue and that there is no need for additional legal analysis; and that community members who are unclear on the details of the present debate can obtain it from both their official chartering organization representative or from other active CCWG participants in whom they place trust.
Regards to all,
Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/cell***
* *
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter *Sent:* Saturday, February 20, 2016 3:17 PM *To:* Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
It is not even slightly clear why any such analysis would help with the current discussion. And it is very clear that keeping an item open to Marrakech is the wrong thing to do.
We are talking about a very narrow point in a broader very simple situation: where GAC chooses to exercise its right to offer consensus advice, which comes with an obligation on ICANN to try and find a mutually agreeable path if disagreement arises.
The working group has agreed that GAC, being uniquely empowered with that right, should not also be able to make decisions on community powers that relate to decisions related to that advice. So far, so good. The carve out. For a rare situation.
Then, to preserve a non-unanimity rule, some adjustments were made to the thresholds to assess community support / opposition in those cases. Those have been clearly documented by Becky.
So having done all that, it appears there is now some confusion about what was agreed.
All that needs to be found (all - hah!) is a path back to closure.
But let's be clear. We are once again after the end of this process re-opening something at the behest of ICANN's board, with messages that were not clear and seek to second guess the work of the CCWG. The completion of the group's work in times for Marrakech is therefore at risk, again (last time it meant Dublin was at risk).
All I want is for people to take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.
For me, as a voting member of the ccwg, I will go with whatever approach closes this out as quickly as possible. But I am no longer confident that that will be quick enough to salvage this process.
An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of delay. I also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive question raised, but perhaps, Megan, you could set out how it might?
Cheers
Jordan
On Sunday, 21 February 2016, <Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu <mailto:Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu>> wrote:
I wonder if an objective, independent analysis from the external legal counsel (or based on their already extensive assessments) would help to focus the real impact/change from status quo of the contentious part of the proposal? This could permit all members, participants and, in particular those who have not had the "advantage" of following the discussions in detail to analyse the relative impact from their perspectives.
Megan
Sent from my iPad
On 20 Feb 2016, at 01:22, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','leonfelipe@sanchez.mx');>> wrote:
Dear all,
As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group.
There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0....
While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process.
It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process.
We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group.
Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule.
As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly.
Thank you,
Thomas, León, Mathieu
/CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs/
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All, Frustration manifested more and more. But there could be a way out .We can not just be indifference. We should learn from those that never disappointed but try till the last mintues Regards Kavouss 2016-02-20 23:12 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, I am sure the Board would include its concerns if CCWG ignore to consider that concern It id not Minority statement . Board should not be labelled as Minority. Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Feb 2016, at 21:58, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
No matter what I think about the acceptability of one more compromise, I agree that it is time to move one and finish. More studies are not going to make this issue any clearer.
If we are unable to accept the Board's suggestion, then we should just leave it to them to add yet one more 'minority' opinion to the report.
avri
On 20-Feb-16 22:41, Phil Corwin wrote:
Jordan:
I am in full agreement with your statement:
An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of delay. I also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive question raised…
Indeed, seeking such an analysis is likely to add even further delay.
We are already far past the timeline we were originally told must be adhered for completion of the Final Report to allow for the necessary review by the NTIA and other USG agencies, as well as for Congressional oversight of the transition and accountability proposals, and to thereby avoid the necessity for a further extension of the IANA contract past September 30, 2016. The Chartering Organizations, including the GNSO, already faced substantial challenges in completing their review and providing well considered positions on the twelve separate recommendations by March 9th – and that was before being informed by the Co-Chairs yesterday that delivery of the Final Report will be delayed by a minimum of five additional days.
I believe that the community has all the information required to resolve the remaining issue and that there is no need for additional legal analysis; and that community members who are unclear on the details of the present debate can obtain it from both their official chartering organization representative or from other active CCWG participants in whom they place trust.
Regards to all,
Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/cell***
* *
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter *Sent:* Saturday, February 20, 2016 3:17 PM *To:* Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
It is not even slightly clear why any such analysis would help with the current discussion. And it is very clear that keeping an item open to Marrakech is the wrong thing to do.
We are talking about a very narrow point in a broader very simple situation: where GAC chooses to exercise its right to offer consensus advice, which comes with an obligation on ICANN to try and find a mutually agreeable path if disagreement arises.
The working group has agreed that GAC, being uniquely empowered with that right, should not also be able to make decisions on community powers that relate to decisions related to that advice. So far, so good. The carve out. For a rare situation.
Then, to preserve a non-unanimity rule, some adjustments were made to the thresholds to assess community support / opposition in those cases. Those have been clearly documented by Becky.
So having done all that, it appears there is now some confusion about what was agreed.
All that needs to be found (all - hah!) is a path back to closure.
But let's be clear. We are once again after the end of this process re-opening something at the behest of ICANN's board, with messages that were not clear and seek to second guess the work of the CCWG. The completion of the group's work in times for Marrakech is therefore at risk, again (last time it meant Dublin was at risk).
All I want is for people to take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.
For me, as a voting member of the ccwg, I will go with whatever approach closes this out as quickly as possible. But I am no longer confident that that will be quick enough to salvage this process.
An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of delay. I also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive question raised, but perhaps, Megan, you could set out how it might?
Cheers
Jordan
On Sunday, 21 February 2016, <Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu <mailto:Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu>> wrote:
I wonder if an objective, independent analysis from the external legal counsel (or based on their already extensive assessments) would help to focus the real impact/change from status quo of the contentious part of the proposal? This could permit all members, participants and, in particular those who have not had the "advantage" of following the discussions in detail to analyse the relative impact from their perspectives.
Megan
Sent from my iPad
On 20 Feb 2016, at 01:22, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','leonfelipe@sanchez.mx');>> wrote:
Dear all,
As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group.
There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0... .
While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process.
It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process.
We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group.
Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule.
As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly.
Thank you,
Thomas, León, Mathieu
/CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs/
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I don't think the questions before use are inherently legal ones, such that our lawyers will be able to tell us which one is "better." Both option are clearly allowed by law. We have policy and judgment calls to make, and that falls to the CCWG to decide, and to our co-chairs to referee, not our lawyers. While I would be curious to know their point of view, it would be just that -- a point of view. We're going to have to work this one out ourselves. Greg On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, Frustration manifested more and more. But there could be a way out .We can not just be indifference. We should learn from those that never disappointed but try till the last mintues Regards Kavouss
2016-02-20 23:12 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, I am sure the Board would include its concerns if CCWG ignore to consider that concern It id not Minority statement . Board should not be labelled as Minority. Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Feb 2016, at 21:58, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
No matter what I think about the acceptability of one more compromise, I agree that it is time to move one and finish. More studies are not going to make this issue any clearer.
If we are unable to accept the Board's suggestion, then we should just leave it to them to add yet one more 'minority' opinion to the report.
avri
On 20-Feb-16 22:41, Phil Corwin wrote:
Jordan:
I am in full agreement with your statement:
An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of delay. I also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive question raised…
Indeed, seeking such an analysis is likely to add even further delay.
We are already far past the timeline we were originally told must be adhered for completion of the Final Report to allow for the necessary review by the NTIA and other USG agencies, as well as for Congressional oversight of the transition and accountability proposals, and to thereby avoid the necessity for a further extension of the IANA contract past September 30, 2016. The Chartering Organizations, including the GNSO, already faced substantial challenges in completing their review and providing well considered positions on the twelve separate recommendations by March 9th – and that was before being informed by the Co-Chairs yesterday that delivery of the Final Report will be delayed by a minimum of five additional days.
I believe that the community has all the information required to resolve the remaining issue and that there is no need for additional legal analysis; and that community members who are unclear on the details of the present debate can obtain it from both their official chartering organization representative or from other active CCWG participants in whom they place trust.
Regards to all,
Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/cell***
* *
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter *Sent:* Saturday, February 20, 2016 3:17 PM *To:* Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
It is not even slightly clear why any such analysis would help with the current discussion. And it is very clear that keeping an item open to Marrakech is the wrong thing to do.
We are talking about a very narrow point in a broader very simple situation: where GAC chooses to exercise its right to offer consensus advice, which comes with an obligation on ICANN to try and find a mutually agreeable path if disagreement arises.
The working group has agreed that GAC, being uniquely empowered with that right, should not also be able to make decisions on community powers that relate to decisions related to that advice. So far, so good. The carve out. For a rare situation.
Then, to preserve a non-unanimity rule, some adjustments were made to the thresholds to assess community support / opposition in those cases. Those have been clearly documented by Becky.
So having done all that, it appears there is now some confusion about what was agreed.
All that needs to be found (all - hah!) is a path back to closure.
But let's be clear. We are once again after the end of this process re-opening something at the behest of ICANN's board, with messages that were not clear and seek to second guess the work of the CCWG. The completion of the group's work in times for Marrakech is therefore at risk, again (last time it meant Dublin was at risk).
All I want is for people to take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.
For me, as a voting member of the ccwg, I will go with whatever approach closes this out as quickly as possible. But I am no longer confident that that will be quick enough to salvage this process.
An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of delay. I also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive question raised, but perhaps, Megan, you could set out how it might?
Cheers
Jordan
On Sunday, 21 February 2016, <Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu <mailto:Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu>> wrote:
I wonder if an objective, independent analysis from the external legal counsel (or based on their already extensive assessments) would help to focus the real impact/change from status quo of the contentious part of the proposal? This could permit all members, participants and, in particular those who have not had the "advantage" of following the discussions in detail to analyse the relative impact from their perspectives.
Megan
Sent from my iPad
On 20 Feb 2016, at 01:22, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','leonfelipe@sanchez.mx');>> wrote:
Dear all,
As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group.
There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0... .
While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process.
It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process.
We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group.
Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule.
As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly.
Thank you,
Thomas, León, Mathieu
/CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs/
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date:
02/14/16
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
+1 – with the caveat that working it out can include deciding to stick with what we have Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 7:00 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: avri@acm.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs I don't think the questions before use are inherently legal ones, such that our lawyers will be able to tell us which one is "better." Both option are clearly allowed by law. We have policy and judgment calls to make, and that falls to the CCWG to decide, and to our co-chairs to referee, not our lawyers. While I would be curious to know their point of view, it would be just that -- a point of view. We're going to have to work this one out ourselves. Greg On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All, Frustration manifested more and more. But there could be a way out .We can not just be indifference. We should learn from those that never disappointed but try till the last mintues Regards Kavouss 2016-02-20 23:12 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear All, I am sure the Board would include its concerns if CCWG ignore to consider that concern It id not Minority statement . Board should not be labelled as Minority. Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Feb 2016, at 21:58, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
No matter what I think about the acceptability of one more compromise, I agree that it is time to move one and finish. More studies are not going to make this issue any clearer.
If we are unable to accept the Board's suggestion, then we should just leave it to them to add yet one more 'minority' opinion to the report.
avri
On 20-Feb-16 22:41, Phil Corwin wrote:
Jordan:
I am in full agreement with your statement:
An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of delay. I also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive question raised…
Indeed, seeking such an analysis is likely to add even further delay.
We are already far past the timeline we were originally told must be adhered for completion of the Final Report to allow for the necessary review by the NTIA and other USG agencies, as well as for Congressional oversight of the transition and accountability proposals, and to thereby avoid the necessity for a further extension of the IANA contract past September 30, 2016. The Chartering Organizations, including the GNSO, already faced substantial challenges in completing their review and providing well considered positions on the twelve separate recommendations by March 9th – and that was before being informed by the Co-Chairs yesterday that delivery of the Final Report will be delayed by a minimum of five additional days.
I believe that the community has all the information required to resolve the remaining issue and that there is no need for additional legal analysis; and that community members who are unclear on the details of the present debate can obtain it from both their official chartering organization representative or from other active CCWG participants in whom they place trust.
Regards to all,
Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/cell***
* *
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter *Sent:* Saturday, February 20, 2016 3:17 PM *To:* Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu<mailto:Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu> *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
It is not even slightly clear why any such analysis would help with the current discussion. And it is very clear that keeping an item open to Marrakech is the wrong thing to do.
We are talking about a very narrow point in a broader very simple situation: where GAC chooses to exercise its right to offer consensus advice, which comes with an obligation on ICANN to try and find a mutually agreeable path if disagreement arises.
The working group has agreed that GAC, being uniquely empowered with that right, should not also be able to make decisions on community powers that relate to decisions related to that advice. So far, so good. The carve out. For a rare situation.
Then, to preserve a non-unanimity rule, some adjustments were made to the thresholds to assess community support / opposition in those cases. Those have been clearly documented by Becky.
So having done all that, it appears there is now some confusion about what was agreed.
All that needs to be found (all - hah!) is a path back to closure.
But let's be clear. We are once again after the end of this process re-opening something at the behest of ICANN's board, with messages that were not clear and seek to second guess the work of the CCWG. The completion of the group's work in times for Marrakech is therefore at risk, again (last time it meant Dublin was at risk).
All I want is for people to take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.
For me, as a voting member of the ccwg, I will go with whatever approach closes this out as quickly as possible. But I am no longer confident that that will be quick enough to salvage this process.
An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of delay. I also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive question raised, but perhaps, Megan, you could set out how it might?
Cheers
Jordan
On Sunday, 21 February 2016, <Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu<mailto:Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu> <mailto:Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu<mailto:Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu>>> wrote:
I wonder if an objective, independent analysis from the external legal counsel (or based on their already extensive assessments) would help to focus the real impact/change from status quo of the contentious part of the proposal? This could permit all members, participants and, in particular those who have not had the "advantage" of following the discussions in detail to analyse the relative impact from their perspectives.
Megan
Sent from my iPad
On 20 Feb 2016, at 01:22, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>');>> wrote:
Dear all,
As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group.
There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0....
While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process.
It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process.
We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group.
Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule.
As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly.
Thank you,
Thomas, León, Mathieu
/CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs/
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
+2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions. ---------------------------------------- From: "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 12:06 AM To: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: "avri@acm.org" <avri@acm.org>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs +1 - with the caveat that working it out can include deciding to stick with what we have Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 7:00 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: avri@acm.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs I don't think the questions before use are inherently legal ones, such that our lawyers will be able to tell us which one is "better." Both option are clearly allowed by law. We have policy and judgment calls to make, and that falls to the CCWG to decide, and to our co-chairs to referee, not our lawyers. While I would be curious to know their point of view, it would be just that -- a point of view. We're going to have to work this one out ourselves. Greg On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear All, Frustration manifested more and more. But there could be a way out .We can not just be indifference. We should learn from those that never disappointed but try till the last mintues Regards Kavouss 2016-02-20 23:12 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear All, I am sure the Board would include its concerns if CCWG ignore to consider that concern It id not Minority statement . Board should not be labelled as Minority. Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Feb 2016, at 21:58, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
No matter what I think about the acceptability of one more compromise, I agree that it is time to move one and finish. More studies are not going to make this issue any clearer.
If we are unable to accept the Board's suggestion, then we should just leave it to them to add yet one more 'minority' opinion to the report.
avri
On 20-Feb-16 22:41, Phil Corwin wrote:
Jordan:
I am in full agreement with your statement:
An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of delay. I also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive question raised.
Indeed, seeking such an analysis is likely to add even further delay.
We are already far past the timeline we were originally told must be adhered for completion of the Final Report to allow for the necessary review by the NTIA and other USG agencies, as well as for Congressional oversight of the transition and accountability proposals, and to thereby avoid the necessity for a further extension of the IANA contract past September 30, 2016. The Chartering Organizations, including the GNSO, already faced substantial challenges in completing their review and providing well considered positions on the twelve separate recommendations by March 9th - and that was before being informed by the Co-Chairs yesterday that delivery of the Final Report will be delayed by a minimum of five additional days.
I believe that the community has all the information required to resolve the remaining issue and that there is no need for additional legal analysis; and that community members who are unclear on the details of the present debate can obtain it from both their official chartering organization representative or from other active CCWG participants in whom they place trust.
Regards to all,
Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/cell***
* *
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter *Sent:* Saturday, February 20, 2016 3:17 PM *To:* Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
It is not even slightly clear why any such analysis would help with the current discussion. And it is very clear that keeping an item open to Marrakech is the wrong thing to do.
We are talking about a very narrow point in a broader very simple situation: where GAC chooses to exercise its right to offer consensus advice, which comes with an obligation on ICANN to try and find a mutually agreeable path if disagreement arises.
The working group has agreed that GAC, being uniquely empowered with that right, should not also be able to make decisions on community powers that relate to decisions related to that advice. So far, so good. The carve out. For a rare situation.
Then, to preserve a non-unanimity rule, some adjustments were made to the thresholds to assess community support / opposition in those cases. Those have been clearly documented by Becky.
So having done all that, it appears there is now some confusion about what was agreed.
All that needs to be found (all - hah!) is a path back to closure.
But let's be clear. We are once again after the end of this process re-opening something at the behest of ICANN's board, with messages that were not clear and seek to second guess the work of the CCWG. The completion of the group's work in times for Marrakech is therefore at risk, again (last time it meant Dublin was at risk).
All I want is for people to take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.
For me, as a voting member of the ccwg, I will go with whatever approach closes this out as quickly as possible. But I am no longer confident that that will be quick enough to salvage this process.
An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of delay. I also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive question raised, but perhaps, Megan, you could set out how it might?
Cheers
Jordan
On Sunday, 21 February 2016, <Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu <mailto:Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu>> wrote:
I wonder if an objective, independent analysis from the external legal counsel (or based on their already extensive assessments) would help to focus the real impact/change from status quo of the contentious part of the proposal? This could permit all members, participants and, in particular those who have not had the "advantage" of following the discussions in detail to analyse the relative impact from their perspectives.
Megan
Sent from my iPad
On 20 Feb 2016, at 01:22, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','leonfelipe@sanchez.mx');>> wrote:
Dear all,
As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group.
There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0....
While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process.
It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process.
We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday's CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group.
Until the Tuesday call, let's keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule.
As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other's value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly.
Thank you,
Thomas, León, Mathieu
/CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs/
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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 ---------------------------------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting. In any case let me place the current state on the record: Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly. But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it. These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living. Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement. In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line. Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris<egmorris1@toast.net>, wrote:
+2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions.
Dear Co-Chairs The number Governments expressing /manifesting serious concerns on the three Recommendations, 1, 2 and mainly 11 is growing. Now 12 countries have formally manifest their objections These concerns are focused on the manner the CCWG attempting to treat GAC in an imbalance manner with respect to other ICANN Constituencies .The CCWG Co- Chairs are urged to explore all ways and means to adequately respond to these growing serious concerns taking into account the long standing principle of universality ,fairness and equal treatments of all Multistakeholders communities in an inclusive, transparent and democratic manner We are members of one family , ICANN Family , and thus deserve to be properly, equally and fairly treated There are still opportunity /opportunities to remedy the cause of these concerns 1. We may go back to call 80 on Rec 11 with two options of Simple Majority and 2/3 FOR THE REJECTION OF GAC ADVICE BY THE BOARD and try to further discus that in removing the famous so-called Carve-Out which is the main cause of some ,if not all ,of these concerns . 2. Two address the threshold of 4 SO/AC required to recall the entire Board in all cases or at least for cases in which IRP is not available 3. Apply the Carve-out all SOs/ACs or to all ACs Treat and still discuss the threshold of 4 SOs / ACs for the removal of the entire Board 4. *Should you not succeed to find compromise then submit multiple options to NTIA? * Irrespective of that amend Annexes 1 and 2 in regard with the adjustments of the threshold if the No. of SOS &ACs changed in either direction and exempt the Board Recall for that threshold Kavouss 2016-02-21 9:01 GMT+01:00 <epilisse@gmail.com>:
I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.
In any case let me place the current state on the record:
Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.
But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it.
These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living.
Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement.
In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line.
Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini
On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>, wrote:
+2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
My views on the fact that we need to move forward are on the record so I am not going to go back and re-debate that but I do feel the need to point out that sending multiple options to NTIA is not an option and I believe (Others with encyclopaedic memories will likely point to the source) that NTIA have publicly stated they expect a single solution to come to them for analysis. I feel that if we don’t move forward on this soon we will lose much of the credibility that we have build over the last 18 months in CWG and CCWG, we are constructing our own potential failure here, let us not do that and move forward with the carefully constructed proposal that we have built, a proposal that no-one is happy with, which should be a sign to all parties that this is a hard won compromise that balances on a needle in terms of acceptability to all involved. -jg From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Sunday 21 February 2016 at 10:05 a.m. To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>, "Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>" <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear Co-Chairs The number Governments expressing /manifesting serious concerns on the three Recommendations, 1, 2 and mainly 11 is growing. Now 12 countries have formally manifest their objections These concerns are focused on the manner the CCWG attempting to treat GAC in an imbalance manner with respect to other ICANN Constituencies .The CCWG Co- Chairs are urged to explore all ways and means to adequately respond to these growing serious concerns taking into account the long standing principle of universality ,fairness and equal treatments of all Multistakeholders communities in an inclusive, transparent and democratic manner We are members of one family , ICANN Family , and thus deserve to be properly, equally and fairly treated There are still opportunity /opportunities to remedy the cause of these concerns 1. We may go back to call 80 on Rec 11 with two options of Simple Majority and 2/3 FOR THE REJECTION OF GAC ADVICE BY THE BOARD and try to further discus that in removing the famous so-called Carve-Out which is the main cause of some ,if not all ,of these concerns . 2. Two address the threshold of 4 SO/AC required to recall the entire Board in all cases or at least for cases in which IRP is not available 3. Apply the Carve-out all SOs/ACs or to all ACs Treat and still discuss the threshold of 4 SOs / ACs for the removal of the entire Board 4. Should you not succeed to find compromise then submit multiple options to NTIA? Irrespective of that amend Annexes 1 and 2 in regard with the adjustments of the threshold if the No. of SOS &ACs changed in either direction and exempt the Board Recall for that threshold Kavouss 2016-02-21 9:01 GMT+01:00 <epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>>: I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting. In any case let me place the current state on the record: Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly. But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it. These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living. Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement. In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line. Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, wrote: +2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear James, You are right to say that we mnned to move forward The course of actions was just for co-Chairs to find ways and means to respond to the Concerns AND NOTHING ELSE. I th don not therefore expect criticism or uinfriendly statement rather thabn be just prepare to explore those wasy and means. People may agree or disagree. that is all. By the way the situation is eveolving from the last call and we need to be mindful of what is happening. NO ANGRY, NO CRITICISM AND NO ATTACK bjut just reflection. Thank you Jame for your very friendly reply that I expect may be followed by others Regards Kavouss 2016-02-21 11:11 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>:
My views on the fact that we need to move forward are on the record so I am not going to go back and re-debate that but I do feel the need to point out that sending multiple options to NTIA is not an option and I believe (Others with encyclopaedic memories will likely point to the source) that NTIA have publicly stated they expect a single solution to come to them for analysis.
I feel that if we don’t move forward on this soon we will lose much of the credibility that we have build over the last 18 months in CWG and CCWG, we are constructing our own potential failure here, let us not do that and move forward with the carefully constructed proposal that we have built, a proposal that no-one is happy with, which should be a sign to all parties that this is a hard won compromise that balances on a needle in terms of acceptability to all involved.
-jg
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: Sunday 21 February 2016 at 10:05 a.m. To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert < thomas@rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>, "Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch" <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
Dear Co-Chairs
The number Governments expressing /manifesting serious concerns on the three Recommendations, 1, 2 and mainly 11 is growing. Now 12 countries have formally manifest their objections
These concerns are focused on the manner the CCWG attempting to treat GAC in an imbalance manner with respect to other ICANN Constituencies .The CCWG Co- Chairs are urged to explore all ways and means to adequately respond to these growing serious concerns taking into account the long standing principle of universality ,fairness and equal treatments of all Multistakeholders communities in an inclusive, transparent and democratic manner
We are members of one family , ICANN Family , and thus deserve to be properly, equally and fairly treated
There are still opportunity /opportunities to remedy the cause of these concerns
1.
We may go back to call 80 on Rec 11 with two options of Simple Majority and 2/3 FOR THE REJECTION OF GAC ADVICE BY THE BOARD and try to further discus that in removing the famous so-called Carve-Out which is the main cause of some ,if not all ,of these concerns . 2.
Two address the threshold of 4 SO/AC required to recall the entire Board in all cases or at least for cases in which IRP is not available 3.
Apply the Carve-out all SOs/ACs or to all ACs Treat and still discuss the threshold of 4 SOs / ACs for the removal of the entire Board 4.
*Should you not succeed to find compromise then submit multiple options to NTIA? *
Irrespective of that amend Annexes 1 and 2 in regard with the adjustments of the threshold if the No. of SOS &ACs changed in either direction and exempt the Board Recall for that threshold Kavouss
2016-02-21 9:01 GMT+01:00 <epilisse@gmail.com>:
I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.
In any case let me place the current state on the record:
Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.
But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it.
These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living.
Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement.
In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line.
Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini
On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>, wrote:
+2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Agree James. On 2/21/2016 10:11 AM, James Gannon wrote:
My views on the fact that we need to move forward are on the record so I am not going to go back and re-debate that but I do feel the need to point out that sending multiple options to NTIA is not an option and I believe (Others with encyclopaedic memories will likely point to the source) that NTIA have publicly stated they expect a single solution to come to them for analysis.
I feel that if we don’t move forward on this soon we will lose much of the credibility that we have build over the last 18 months in CWG and CCWG, we are constructing our own potential failure here, let us not do that and move forward with the carefully constructed proposal that we have built, a proposal that no-one is happy with, which should be a sign to all parties that this is a hard won compromise that balances on a needle in terms of acceptability to all involved.
-jg
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Sunday 21 February 2016 at 10:05 a.m. To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>, "Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>" <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
Dear Co-Chairs
The number Governments expressing /manifesting serious concerns on the three Recommendations, 1, 2 and mainly 11 is growing. Now 12 countries have formally manifest their objections
These concerns are focused on the manner the CCWG attempting to treat GAC in an imbalance manner with respect to other ICANN Constituencies .The CCWG Co- Chairs are urged to explore all ways and means to adequately respond to these growing serious concerns taking into account the long standing principle of universality ,fairness and equal treatments of all Multistakeholders communities in an inclusive, transparent and democratic manner
We are members of one family , ICANN Family , and thus deserve to be properly, equally and fairly treated
There are still opportunity /opportunities to remedy the cause of these concerns
1.
We may go back to call 80 on Rec 11 with two options of Simple Majority and 2/3 FOR THE REJECTION OF GAC ADVICE BY THE BOARD and try to further discus that in removing the famous so-called Carve-Out which is the main cause of some ,if not all ,of these concerns .
2.
Two address the threshold of 4 SO/AC required to recall the entire Board in all cases or at least for cases in which IRP is not available
3.
Apply the Carve-out all SOs/ACs or to all ACs Treat and still discuss the threshold of 4 SOs / ACs for the removal of the entire Board
4.
*Should you not succeed to find compromise then submit multiple options to NTIA?*
Irrespective of that amend Annexes 1 and 2 in regard with the adjustments of the threshold if the No. of SOS &ACs changed in either direction and exempt the Board Recall for that threshold Kavouss
2016-02-21 9:01 GMT+01:00 <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>>:
I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.
In any case let me place the current state on the record:
Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.
But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it.
These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living.
Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement.
In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line.
Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini
On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, wrote:
+2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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
-- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
James, I totally agree . We have all been here before- 11 th hour negotiation tactics. There is no more time for tinkering . The 19 February deadline has been and gone. The line has to be drawn. It is time to ship the proposal as is. Regards, Phil From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears Sent: 21 February 2016 12:42 To: James Gannon; Kavouss Arasteh; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Burr, Becky; Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch Cc: CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Agree James. On 2/21/2016 10:11 AM, James Gannon wrote: My views on the fact that we need to move forward are on the record so I am not going to go back and re-debate that but I do feel the need to point out that sending multiple options to NTIA is not an option and I believe (Others with encyclopaedic memories will likely point to the source) that NTIA have publicly stated they expect a single solution to come to them for analysis. I feel that if we dont move forward on this soon we will lose much of the credibility that we have build over the last 18 months in CWG and CCWG, we are constructing our own potential failure here, let us not do that and move forward with the carefully constructed proposal that we have built, a proposal that no-one is happy with, which should be a sign to all parties that this is a hard won compromise that balances on a needle in terms of acceptability to all involved. -jg From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: Sunday 21 February 2016 at 10:05 a.m. To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>, "Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch" <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear Co-Chairs The number Governments expressing /manifesting serious concerns on the three Recommendations, 1, 2 and mainly 11 is growing. Now 12 countries have formally manifest their objections These concerns are focused on the manner the CCWG attempting to treat GAC in an imbalance manner with respect to other ICANN Constituencies .The CCWG Co- Chairs are urged to explore all ways and means to adequately respond to these growing serious concerns taking into account the long standing principle of universality ,fairness and equal treatments of all Multistakeholders communities in an inclusive, transparent and democratic manner We are members of one family , ICANN Family , and thus deserve to be properly, equally and fairly treated There are still opportunity /opportunities to remedy the cause of these concerns 1. We may go back to call 80 on Rec 11 with two options of Simple Majority and 2/3 FOR THE REJECTION OF GAC ADVICE BY THE BOARD and try to further discus that in removing the famous so-called Carve-Out which is the main cause of some ,if not all ,of these concerns . 2. Two address the threshold of 4 SO/AC required to recall the entire Board in all cases or at least for cases in which IRP is not available 3. Apply the Carve-out all SOs/ACs or to all ACs Treat and still discuss the threshold of 4 SOs / ACs for the removal of the entire Board 4. Should you not succeed to find compromise then submit multiple options to NTIA? Irrespective of that amend Annexes 1 and 2 in regard with the adjustments of the threshold if the No. of SOS &ACs changed in either direction and exempt the Board Recall for that threshold Kavouss 2016-02-21 9:01 GMT+01:00 <epilisse@gmail.com>: I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting. In any case let me place the current state on the record: Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly. But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it. These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living. Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement. In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line. Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>, wrote: +2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions. _______________________________________________ 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 -- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email> www.avast.com
Dear Esteemed Co-chairs Dear Distinguished All There are propel systematically agree to each others. That is very good. But it would be much better if these dear friends also manifest their readiness and good will to listen to those many others who expressed concerns on the natter so as ways and means could be explored to possibly find common ground to have the agreements of others . We could agree with each others repeatedly but until the time that others who have concerns do not feel comfortable to agree with these already agreed with each others, we would have no overall agreement. The famous proverb said"Nothing agreed until every thing is agreed" and " no agreement is reached until every body agreed" Then pls respectfully allow some useful discussion in a healthy manner with a view to have consensus on this vitally important elements Let us cross finger that nobody object to explore ways and means as outlined above Best Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 21 Feb 2016, at 14:21, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk> wrote:
James, I totally agree . We have all been here before- 11 th hour negotiation tactics. There is no more time for “ tinkering “ . The 19 February deadline has been and gone. The line has to be drawn. It is time to ship the proposal as is.
Regards,
Phil
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears Sent: 21 February 2016 12:42 To: James Gannon; Kavouss Arasteh; Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Burr, Becky; Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch Cc: CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
Agree James.
On 2/21/2016 10:11 AM, James Gannon wrote: My views on the fact that we need to move forward are on the record so I am not going to go back and re-debate that but I do feel the need to point out that sending multiple options to NTIA is not an option and I believe (Others with encyclopaedic memories will likely point to the source) that NTIA have publicly stated they expect a single solution to come to them for analysis.
I feel that if we don’t move forward on this soon we will lose much of the credibility that we have build over the last 18 months in CWG and CCWG, we are constructing our own potential failure here, let us not do that and move forward with the carefully constructed proposal that we have built, a proposal that no-one is happy with, which should be a sign to all parties that this is a hard won compromise that balances on a needle in terms of acceptability to all involved.
-jg
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: Sunday 21 February 2016 at 10:05 a.m. To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>, "Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch" <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
Dear Co-Chairs
The number Governments expressing /manifesting serious concerns on the three Recommendations, 1, 2 and mainly 11 is growing. Now 12 countries have formally manifest their objections
These concerns are focused on the manner the CCWG attempting to treat GAC in an imbalance manner with respect to other ICANN Constituencies .The CCWG Co- Chairs are urged to explore all ways and means to adequately respond to these growing serious concerns taking into account the long standing principle of universality ,fairness and equal treatments of all Multistakeholders communities in an inclusive, transparent and democratic manner
We are members of one family , ICANN Family , and thus deserve to be properly, equally and fairly treated
There are still opportunity /opportunities to remedy the cause of these concerns
1. We may go back to call 80 on Rec 11 with two options of Simple Majority and 2/3 FOR THE REJECTION OF GAC ADVICE BY THE BOARD and try to further discus that in removing the famous so-called Carve-Out which is the main cause of some ,if not all ,of these concerns . 2. Two address the threshold of 4 SO/AC required to recall the entire Board in all cases or at least for cases in which IRP is not available 3. Apply the Carve-out all SOs/ACs or to all ACs Treat and still discuss the threshold of 4 SOs / ACs for the removal of the entire Board 4. Should you not succeed to find compromise then submit multiple options to NTIA? Irrespective of that amend Annexes 1 and 2 in regard with the adjustments of the threshold if the No. of SOS &ACs changed in either direction and exempt the Board Recall for that threshold Kavouss
2016-02-21 9:01 GMT+01:00 <epilisse@gmail.com>: I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.
In any case let me place the current state on the record:
Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.
But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it.
These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living.
Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement.
In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line.
Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini
On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>, wrote:
+2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions.
_______________________________________________ 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
--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.
This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com
I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management. For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following: 1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator 2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold 3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we? Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: epilisse@gmail.com [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting. In any case let me place the current state on the record: Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly. But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it. These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living. Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement. In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line. Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> >, wrote: +2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions.
if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following:
…
3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all.
Well, it has indeed become increasingly clear since nigh on two years that a few participants do not accept the underlying multistakeholder structure of ICANN, at all. Thankyou, Paul, for explicitly confirming that. CW On 21 Feb 2016, at 17:07, "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management.
For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following:
1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator 2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold 3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all
All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <image001.png>
From: epilisse@gmail.com [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.
In any case let me place the current state on the record:
Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.
But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it.
These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living.
Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement.
In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line.
Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini
On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>, wrote:
+2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Well, that's just silly - there are probably a dozen people who share the view that "advisory" committees should be "advisory" not decisional. And none of them would be classed as not accepting the underlying multistakeholder model. Anyone who wants to surf the list archives can find that as can anyone who's ever read anything I've written on the topic We passed that bridge a long time ago and, frankly, I am content with that. My point, of course, is exactly the opposite. That long ago we made some decisions I (and many others) don't agree with and that if we accept a world in which those who complain loudest at the end get to reopen settled rules, we should reopen all the ones that were contentious .. Which is not what we should do. Thanks, for confirming CW that your arguments are merely tendentious Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=em ail&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016> From: Christopher Wilkinson [mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 11:50 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following:
.
3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all.
Well, it has indeed become increasingly clear since nigh on two years that a few participants do not accept the underlying multistakeholder structure of ICANN, at all. Thankyou, Paul, for explicitly confirming that. CW On 21 Feb 2016, at 17:07, "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote: I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management. For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following: 1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator 2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold 3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all All of those are things that I'm unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let's just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we? Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=em ail&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016> <image001.png> From: <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com> epilisse@gmail.com [mailto:epilisse@ <http://gmail.com> gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting. In any case let me place the current state on the record: Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly. But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it. These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living. Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement. In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line. Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris < <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> egmorris1@toast.net>, wrote: +2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
"...let's just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we?" And if that message were being sent strongly by the CCWG chartering organizations, then perhaps it is exactly what we should do. But the official voices of those organizations are not the ones that I am largely hearing here. Alan At 21/02/2016 11:07 AM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management.
For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following:
1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator 2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold 3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all
All of those are things that Iâm unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), letâs just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Hi Alan, And if that message were being sent strongly by the CCWG chartering organizations, then perhaps it is exactly what we should do. But the official voices of those organizations are not the ones that I am largely hearing here. - Given that your comment here appears to be directed in part of whole towards Paul Rosenzwig (posted on top of Paul's) , as was an earlier ad hominem attack by another ALAC member, I feel compelled to respond as follows: Paul Rosenzweig and the Heritage Foundation are valued members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group and of the Noncommercial Users Constituency. His and their positions on this matter are largely consistent with that posited by our CCWG Member Robin Gross and generally reflect my views and that of many, although not all, of our members. Paul's views are generally consistent with the views expressed by both the NCSG and the NCUC in our comments on the third draft proposal. Personally, I am deeply concerned by this groups response to the latest Board intervention. The intervention was not timely and certainly is not the type of action that lends confidence that this is an organisation of law and not of men. We seem to be straying into the 'might makes right' category of ordering our affairs. If that is my final conclusion, be assured that I personally, regardless of the content of our proposal, will lobby Congress as hard as I can to reject this transition. My members will make their own decision, but I suspect many will be with me on this. If we are a community of convenience rather than one of rules than any proposal from this group will not be worth the paper it is written on. I would like to replicate, with his permission, a post made earlier today on the GNSO Council list by Johan Helsingius, NonCom appointee to the GNSO Council. Johnan is not a member of the CCWG, nor of any SG , but will be casting a vote on all twelve recommendations when they come before the GNSO Council: ---
It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published > the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of > a Board disagreement later in the process. Isn't the board opinion simply just that - an opinion (maybe belonging in with the minority statements)? There is of course the possibility that they invoke the magic phrase "global public interest", but that requires 2/3 majority of the board, and leads to a formal dialogue with the CCWG. Am I correct in assuming any amendments would then go back to the chartering organisations for approval one more time? Julf
--- There are procedures, as Johan mentions, for the Board to have input to the process. There are processes for the chartering organisations to respond. There are proper methods to deal with concerns of all Stakeholders. Dumping demands from a position of power, rather than authority, into a review period in the final 48 hours before publication of our final report is inappropriate. That the Chairs responded to this in the way they did is sad. Alan, as a member of the GNSO Council proudly representing the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group, the largest and most diverse organisation in the ICANN community, I largely echo many of Paul's thoughts and do it from my position as an elected GNSO Councillor. That shouldn't matter but it appears to do so to you. In addition, if I'm not confident this organisation has a rule abiding DNA I will oppose the transition and ask the NTIA for a five year contract extension to allow ICANN additional time to mature. I hope that is not necessary. I hope, upon consideration, this group will take Julf's reaction, above, as a warning as to how capitulation to the Board at this moment will be viewed by the wider community and world. For me it's not the substance of their objection, it's the disregard for process and procedure their timing showed. Thanks, Alan, for your immense contribution to this effort. I hope we are able to come together and create, as equal stakeholders committed to proper structure and procedure, a transition and accountability plan the world can be proud of. Kind Regards, Edward Morris GNSO Council NonCommercial Stakeholders Group Noncommerrcioial Users Constituency ---------------------------------------- From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 5:57 PM To: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>, epilisse@gmail.com, "CCWG Accountability" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: "Lisse Eberhard" <directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs "...let's just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we?" And if that message were being sent strongly by the CCWG chartering organizations, then perhaps it is exactly what we should do. But the official voices of those organizations are not the ones that I am largely hearing here. Alan At 21/02/2016 11:07 AM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management. For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following: 1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator 2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold 3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all All of those are things that Iâm unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), letâs just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we? Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
All, Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our views. Let me just be clear: We have described and summarized the current situation with our statement. We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome of such discusion. Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential) consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This consultation will take place on Tuesday. Kind regards, Thomas Rickert --- rickert.net
Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:
I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management.
For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following:
1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator 2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold 3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all
All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <image001.png>
From: epilisse@gmail.com [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.
In any case let me place the current state on the record:
Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.
But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it.
These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living.
Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement.
In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line.
Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini
On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>, wrote:
+2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Minority Statement Dear All, I have read and read the Minority Statement made by A GAC MEMBERS in CCWG which is now supported by 11 other governments. There serval messages in that Statement GAC Situation at this very moment 1. In future only a full Consensus Advice in the absence of any formal objection would be considered by the Board which is quite different from existing situation . This make it very probable that as of the date of the transition coming in to force , *NO* *MORE GAC ADVICE WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE Board due to the fact that, no matter how much efforts be made by 154 existing GAC Members, one single Government on any ground as it so wishes could block that* Advice not to become eligible for consideration by the Board. This is a new working method that enshrining a clear VETO to null out efforts of the rest of the GAC members in this regard. This is resulted from the proposed ST18 *Consequently the so-called special privilege repeatedly referred to by others would in fact very rarely happens * 1. The 2/3 threshold for the rejection of the GAC Advice by the Board was proposed but was not accepted unless the existing Simple Majority is retained However, if instead of either of Simple Majority a 60% threshold is taken, it should be combined with the so-called *CARE-OUT CONCEPT* .This implies that on the one hand the probability of having GAC advice is limited to the most lowest level , almost zero probability based on the argument mentioned in 1) above ,however, even if on a rare care there would be a GAC Advice with full consensus, that advice may be rejected by 60% of the Board’s Member 2. Should the Board agrees to the Initial (very improbable occurrence of GAC Advice), or if the initial advice is rejected but then was accepted as results of negotiation of the Board with GAC any one in the community could invoke IRP or just simply make a petition to recall the entire Board with only 3 SO/AC in favour excluding by alleging that Board acceptance of Advice was inconsistent with its mission or Bylaws, or Article of Incorporation. As results of application of so-called carve-out approach/concept GAC would excluded to exercise its legitimate right to participate in the decision making and defend the case 3. These unfavorable situation does not exist for any SO and AC at al 4. in view of the above GAC has lost the battle in three DIFFERENT fronts *6 Some other communities said that *in exchange of what GAC lost ,it has gained the ability to exercise the community power and become a decisional making community in some areas. 7 Such empowerment which did not exist for any SO/AC now is given to every SOs /ACs 8 That is not totally correct due to the following 8.1 Some of the power is now waived as results of application of so-called Carve-out 8.2 GAC has not decided and may never decide to exercise those powers atall, 9. In view of the above, there is a need to give a fresh look and reconsider the situation. 10. Based on the above understanding from the Minority Statement, wouldn’t be possible that the utmost efforts be made to find a win-win situation for every SO/AC? 11. Any of us is subject to make a mistake or misconception. The important issue is to duly correct the mistake . Never is late. There is always an opportunity to remedy the problem. However, it requires good will, spirit of collaboration, mutual understanding and freindly and healthy enviroment for resolution of the problem *Pelasse kindly be friendly and kindly avoid demonstrating any emotion and fully respect the IVCANN ETHIC * *You may disagree or agree but pls avoid and offensive message * Regards Kavouss 2016-02-21 20:58 GMT+01:00 Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>:
All, Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our views.
Let me just be clear:
We have described and summarized the current situation with our statement. We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome of such discusion.
Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential) consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This consultation will take place on Tuesday.
Kind regards, Thomas Rickert
--- rickert.net
Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:
I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management.
For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following:
1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator
2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold
3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all
All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
<image001.png> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...>
*From:* epilisse@gmail.com [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com <epilisse@gmail.com>]
*Sent:* Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM *To:* CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.
In any case let me place the current state on the record:
Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.
But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it.
These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living.
Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement.
In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line.
Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini
On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>, wrote:
+2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions.
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi, On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:12:57PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
*Consequently the so-called special privilege repeatedly referred to by others would in fact very rarely happens *
In that case, of course, the carve-out doesn't take effect anyway. So if this is in fact to be so rare, why would anyone argue that it needs to be changed? The argument, "Such-and-thus effect is never going to happen, so we must set up the procedures around it perfectly," doesn't really seem to hang together. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Andrew, I am sorry, you missed the point that I raised The point was ,with ST18, the GAC will totally be disabled to agree on such consensus ADVICE as one single government could always oppose to the Advice. This was purposely injected in the Recommendation That is the meaning of rare advice. Pls kindly read the text as it MEANT and kindly not turn it around Regards Kavouss . 2016-02-21 23:38 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>:
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:12:57PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
*Consequently the so-called special privilege repeatedly referred to by others would in fact very rarely happens *
In that case, of course, the carve-out doesn't take effect anyway. So if this is in fact to be so rare, why would anyone argue that it needs to be changed? The argument, "Such-and-thus effect is never going to happen, so we must set up the procedures around it perfectly," doesn't really seem to hang together.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Kavouss, all: That is the situation today. Why would advice be any more or less likely than it is today? best Jordan On 22 February 2016 at 12:03, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Andrew,
I am sorry, you missed the point that I raised
The point was ,with ST18, the GAC will totally be disabled to agree on such consensus ADVICE as one single government could always oppose to the Advice. This was purposely injected in the Recommendation
That is the meaning of rare advice.
Pls kindly read the text as it MEANT and kindly not turn it around
Regards
Kavouss .
2016-02-21 23:38 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>:
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:12:57PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
*Consequently the so-called special privilege repeatedly referred to by others would in fact very rarely happens *
In that case, of course, the carve-out doesn't take effect anyway. So if this is in fact to be so rare, why would anyone argue that it needs to be changed? The argument, "Such-and-thus effect is never going to happen, so we must set up the procedures around it perfectly," doesn't really seem to hang together.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
Dear All, Who can guarantee that even advice agreed by the Board would not be subject to IRP or a non IRP community power application resulting to the removal if the Board with only 3 SO/AC? One possible option would be to maintain the requirement if Board removal with FOUR SO/AC That may to some extent remedy the shortcoming? That remedial action has now been Agreed by several people I hope you would not object to that. Regards Sent from my iPhone
On 21 Feb 2016, at 23:38, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:12:57PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
*Consequently the so-called special privilege repeatedly referred to by others would in fact very rarely happens *
In that case, of course, the carve-out doesn't take effect anyway. So if this is in fact to be so rare, why would anyone argue that it needs to be changed? The argument, "Such-and-thus effect is never going to happen, so we must set up the procedures around it perfectly," doesn't really seem to hang together.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
My responses are inline below. Greg On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Minority Statement
Dear All,
I have read and read the Minority Statement made by A GAC MEMBERS in CCWG which is now supported by 11 other governments.
It's worth noting that the other GAC members in the CCWG have not supported this Minority Statement, so it remains just that -- a minority statement. Have you read the Minority Statement made by a GNSO Member in CCWG (Robin Gross) which is now supported by a number of other stakeholders? We should not emphasize one Minority Statement over another.
There serval messages in that Statement
GAC Situation at this very moment
1.
In future only a full Consensus Advice in the absence of any formal objection would be considered by the Board which is quite different from existing situation . This make it very probable that as of the date of the transition coming in to force , *NO* *MORE GAC ADVICE WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE Board due to the fact that, no matter how much efforts be made by 154 existing GAC Members, one single Government on any ground as it so wishes could block that* Advice not to become eligible for consideration by the Board. This is a new working method that enshrining a clear VETO to null out efforts of the rest of the GAC members in this regard. This is resulted from the proposed ST18
This is not a new working method. This is not quite different from the existing situation. It is the current and longstanding working method of the GAC.
You seem to think that the Proposal says GAC advice won't even be considered by the Board unless it is full consensus Advice. However, that is simply not true. The GAC can provide advice that is not full consensus advice, and the Board will still have to "duly take into account" that advice. But, if it's full consensus advice (as all GAC advice has been to date), the Board will be required to consult with the GAC and try to reach a mutually acceptable solution if the Board votes to act inconsistently with that advice -- *and that vote will now require a supermajority, thanks to the new Proposal*. So, there is no real change, except that if the GAC decides to offer non-full-consensus advice, it will not get all of the deference accorded to full-consensus advice. However, if the GAC sticks with the status quo (full consensus advice), then its advice will be treated with even *greater* deference, due to the newly-acquired supermajority vote. In other words, if the GAC continues to do what it has always done, its advice will be even harder for the Board to reject. There's no reason that this would result in "no more GAC advice". (If this is an implicit plea to require the Board to give the same deferential treatment to non-full-consensus advice as it does to full consensus advice, that is an absolute non-starter.)
*Consequently the so-called special privilege repeatedly referred to by others would in fact very rarely happens*
As noted above, there is every reason to believe that the special privilege will occur as often as it happens now, which is virtually every time the GAC acts.
1.
The 2/3 threshold for the rejection of the GAC Advice by the Board was proposed but was not accepted unless the existing Simple Majority is retained However, if instead of either of Simple Majority a 60% threshold is taken, it should be combined with the so-called *CARE-OUT CONCEPT* .This implies that on the one hand the probability of having GAC advice is limited to the most lowest level , almost zero probability based on the argument mentioned in 1) above ,however, even if on a rare care there would be a GAC Advice with full consensus, that advice may be rejected by 60% of the Board’s Member
The combination of the 60% supermajority threshold and the carve-out is
what has been proposed. I'm not certain of the rest of your point, especially since there's no basis for the claim that GAC advice will be any rarer than it is now.
1.
2.
Should the Board agrees to the Initial (very improbable occurrence of GAC Advice), or if the initial advice is rejected but then was accepted as results of negotiation of the Board with GAC any one in the community could invoke IRP or just simply make a petition to recall the entire Board with only 3 SO/AC in favour excluding by alleging that Board acceptance of Advice was inconsistent with its mission or Bylaws, or Article of Incorporation. As results of application of so-called carve-out approach/concept GAC would excluded to exercise its legitimate right to participate in the decision making and defend the case
Again, this is an incorrect understanding of the proposal. Under the
carve-out, the GAC will have every right to make it's case and to participate in every aspect of the escalation process -- except the decisional moment.
1.
These unfavorable situation does not exist for any SO and AC at al
Other SO/ACs do not have the same privileged position as the GAC. If
anything, that privileged position is strengthened by the Proposal, given the 60% supermajority. Depriving the GAC of its "second bite at the apple" is a small counterbalance to this privileged position.
1.
in view of the above GAC has lost the battle in three DIFFERENT fronts
This score-keeping is incorrect (although I reject the idea that this
should be cast as a "battle" between the GAC and other stakeholders). The GAC has won its supermajority vote battle. The GAC members signing on to the Minority Statement may believe the GAC has lost its (potential) ability to offer non-full-consensus advice and have it treated the same as full-consensus-advice, but I would hardly count that as a loss, since the likelihood of such a change is fairly low (and would likely have engendered a multistakeholder debate very much like the one we have had for many months). As far as current activities go, the GAC has lost nothing. The carve-out may be seen as a "loss" (although I prefer to think of it as a compromise, or an adjustment) and the less-privileged position that non-consensus advice will enjoy may also be seen as a loss, but these are balanced by the "win" of the supermajority vote.
1.
*6 Some other communities said that *in exchange of what GAC lost ,it has gained the ability to exercise the community power and become a decisional making community in some areas.
7 Such empowerment which did not exist for any SO/AC now is given to every SOs /ACs
8 That is not totally correct due to the following
8.1 Some of the power is now waived as results of application of so-called Carve-out
8.2 GAC has not decided and may never decide to exercise those powers atall,
The GAC's decisional power is only waived in very specific instances and only to a specific extent (decision-making); in every other case, the GAC's ability to participate is completely unfettered. If the GAC does not decide to exercise its decisional powers, then the whole issue of the "carve-out" is moot. In any event, the GAC will have the capacity to exercise those powers whenever it wants to. 9. In view of the above, there is a need to give a fresh look
and reconsider the situation.
I don't see anything in the above, once certain misunderstandings are clarified, that gives rise to the need for a fresh look and reconsideration of the situation.
10. Based on the above understanding from the Minority Statement, wouldn’t be possible that the utmost efforts be made to find a win-win situation for every SO/AC?
I think we have a win-win in the current proposal. Every side of the equation may want a bigger win, but that's the essence of compromise and consensus.
11. Any of us is subject to make a mistake or misconception. The important issue is to duly correct the mistake .
I don't see the current proposal as a mistake. The only mistakes I see here are fundamental misunderstandings of the proposal.
Never is late. There is always an opportunity to remedy the problem.
However, it requires good will, spirit of collaboration, mutual understanding and freindly and healthy enviroment for resolution of the problem
*Pelasse kindly be friendly and kindly avoid demonstrating any emotion and fully respect the IVCANN ETHIC *
*You may disagree or agree but pls avoid and offensive message *
Regards
Kavouss
2016-02-21 20:58 GMT+01:00 Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>:
All, Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our views.
Let me just be clear:
We have described and summarized the current situation with our statement. We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome of such discusion.
Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential) consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This consultation will take place on Tuesday.
Kind regards, Thomas Rickert
--- rickert.net
Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:
I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management.
For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following:
1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator
2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold
3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all
All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
<image001.png> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...>
*From:* epilisse@gmail.com [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com <epilisse@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM *To:* CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.
In any case let me place the current state on the record:
Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.
But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it.
These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living.
Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement.
In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line.
Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini
On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>, wrote:
+2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions.
_______________________________________________ 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
+1 ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> On Feb 21, 2016, at 8:08 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: My responses are inline below. Greg On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Minority Statement Dear All, I have read and read the Minority Statement made by A GAC MEMBERS in CCWG which is now supported by 11 other governments. It's worth noting that the other GAC members in the CCWG have not supported this Minority Statement, so it remains just that -- a minority statement. Have you read the Minority Statement made by a GNSO Member in CCWG (Robin Gross) which is now supported by a number of other stakeholders? We should not emphasize one Minority Statement over another. There serval messages in that Statement GAC Situation at this very moment 1. In future only a full Consensus Advice in the absence of any formal objection would be considered by the Board which is quite different from existing situation . This make it very probable that as of the date of the transition coming in to force , NO MORE GAC ADVICE WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE Board due to the fact that, no matter how much efforts be made by 154 existing GAC Members, one single Government on any ground as it so wishes could block that Advice not to become eligible for consideration by the Board. This is a new working method that enshrining a clear VETO to null out efforts of the rest of the GAC members in this regard. This is resulted from the proposed ST18 This is not a new working method. This is not quite different from the existing situation. It is the current and longstanding working method of the GAC. You seem to think that the Proposal says GAC advice won't even be considered by the Board unless it is full consensus Advice. However, that is simply not true. The GAC can provide advice that is not full consensus advice, and the Board will still have to "duly take into account" that advice. But, if it's full consensus advice (as all GAC advice has been to date), the Board will be required to consult with the GAC and try to reach a mutually acceptable solution if the Board votes to act inconsistently with that advice -- and that vote will now require a supermajority, thanks to the new Proposal. So, there is no real change, except that if the GAC decides to offer non-full-consensus advice, it will not get all of the deference accorded to full-consensus advice. However, if the GAC sticks with the status quo (full consensus advice), then its advice will be treated with even greater deference, due to the newly-acquired supermajority vote. In other words, if the GAC continues to do what it has always done, its advice will be even harder for the Board to reject. There's no reason that this would result in "no more GAC advice". (If this is an implicit plea to require the Board to give the same deferential treatment to non-full-consensus advice as it does to full consensus advice, that is an absolute non-starter.) Consequently the so-called special privilege repeatedly referred to by others would in fact very rarely happens As noted above, there is every reason to believe that the special privilege will occur as often as it happens now, which is virtually every time the GAC acts. 1. The 2/3 threshold for the rejection of the GAC Advice by the Board was proposed but was not accepted unless the existing Simple Majority is retained However, if instead of either of Simple Majority a 60% threshold is taken, it should be combined with the so-called CARE-OUT CONCEPT .This implies that on the one hand the probability of having GAC advice is limited to the most lowest level , almost zero probability based on the argument mentioned in 1) above ,however, even if on a rare care there would be a GAC Advice with full consensus, that advice may be rejected by 60% of the Board’s Member The combination of the 60% supermajority threshold and the carve-out is what has been proposed. I'm not certain of the rest of your point, especially since there's no basis for the claim that GAC advice will be any rarer than it is now. 1. 2. Should the Board agrees to the Initial (very improbable occurrence of GAC Advice), or if the initial advice is rejected but then was accepted as results of negotiation of the Board with GAC any one in the community could invoke IRP or just simply make a petition to recall the entire Board with only 3 SO/AC in favour excluding by alleging that Board acceptance of Advice was inconsistent with its mission or Bylaws, or Article of Incorporation. As results of application of so-called carve-out approach/concept GAC would excluded to exercise its legitimate right to participate in the decision making and defend the case Again, this is an incorrect understanding of the proposal. Under the carve-out, the GAC will have every right to make it's case and to participate in every aspect of the escalation process -- except the decisional moment. 1. These unfavorable situation does not exist for any SO and AC at al Other SO/ACs do not have the same privileged position as the GAC. If anything, that privileged position is strengthened by the Proposal, given the 60% supermajority. Depriving the GAC of its "second bite at the apple" is a small counterbalance to this privileged position. 1. in view of the above GAC has lost the battle in three DIFFERENT fronts This score-keeping is incorrect (although I reject the idea that this should be cast as a "battle" between the GAC and other stakeholders). The GAC has won its supermajority vote battle. The GAC members signing on to the Minority Statement may believe the GAC has lost its (potential) ability to offer non-full-consensus advice and have it treated the same as full-consensus-advice, but I would hardly count that as a loss, since the likelihood of such a change is fairly low (and would likely have engendered a multistakeholder debate very much like the one we have had for many months). As far as current activities go, the GAC has lost nothing. The carve-out may be seen as a "loss" (although I prefer to think of it as a compromise, or an adjustment) and the less-privileged position that non-consensus advice will enjoy may also be seen as a loss, but these are balanced by the "win" of the supermajority vote. 1. 6 Some other communities said that in exchange of what GAC lost ,it has gained the ability to exercise the community power and become a decisional making community in some areas. 7 Such empowerment which did not exist for any SO/AC now is given to every SOs /ACs 8 That is not totally correct due to the following 8.1 Some of the power is now waived as results of application of so-called Carve-out 8.2 GAC has not decided and may never decide to exercise those powers atall, The GAC's decisional power is only waived in very specific instances and only to a specific extent (decision-making); in every other case, the GAC's ability to participate is completely unfettered. If the GAC does not decide to exercise its decisional powers, then the whole issue of the "carve-out" is moot. In any event, the GAC will have the capacity to exercise those powers whenever it wants to. 9. In view of the above, there is a need to give a fresh look and reconsider the situation. I don't see anything in the above, once certain misunderstandings are clarified, that gives rise to the need for a fresh look and reconsideration of the situation. 10. Based on the above understanding from the Minority Statement, wouldn’t be possible that the utmost efforts be made to find a win-win situation for every SO/AC? I think we have a win-win in the current proposal. Every side of the equation may want a bigger win, but that's the essence of compromise and consensus. 11. Any of us is subject to make a mistake or misconception. The important issue is to duly correct the mistake . I don't see the current proposal as a mistake. The only mistakes I see here are fundamental misunderstandings of the proposal. Never is late. There is always an opportunity to remedy the problem. However, it requires good will, spirit of collaboration, mutual understanding and freindly and healthy enviroment for resolution of the problem Pelasse kindly be friendly and kindly avoid demonstrating any emotion and fully respect the IVCANN ETHIC You may disagree or agree but pls avoid and offensive message Regards Kavouss 2016-02-21 20:58 GMT+01:00 Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>: All, Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our views. Let me just be clear: We have described and summarized the current situation with our statement. We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome of such discusion. Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential) consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This consultation will take place on Tuesday. Kind regards, Thomas Rickert --- rickert.net<http://rickert.net> Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>: I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management. For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following: 1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator 2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold 3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we? Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> <image001.png><http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com> [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting. In any case let me place the current state on the record: Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly. But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it. These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living. Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement. In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line. Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, wrote: +2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 - thanks Greg for clearly outlining the state of play On 2/22/2016 2:21 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
+1
________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
On Feb 21, 2016, at 8:08 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
My responses are inline below.
Greg
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Minority Statement
Dear All,
I have read and read the Minority Statement made by A GAC MEMBERS in CCWG which is now supported by 11 other governments.
It's worth noting that the other GAC members in the CCWG have not supported this Minority Statement, so it remains just that -- a minority statement.
Have you read the Minority Statement made by a GNSO Member in CCWG (Robin Gross) which is now supported by a number of other stakeholders? We should not emphasize one Minority Statement over another.
There serval messages in that Statement
GAC Situation at this very moment
1. In future only a full Consensus Advice in the absence of any formal objection would be considered by the Board which is quite different from existing situation . This make it very probable that as of the date of the transition coming in to force , NO MORE GAC ADVICE WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE Board due to the fact that, no matter how much efforts be made by 154 existing GAC Members, one single Government on any ground as it so wishes could block that Advice not to become eligible for consideration by the Board. This is a new working method that enshrining a clear VETO to null out efforts of the rest of the GAC members in this regard. This is resulted from the proposed ST18
This is not a new working method. This is not quite different from the existing situation. It is the current and longstanding working method of the GAC.
You seem to think that the Proposal says GAC advice won't even be considered by the Board unless it is full consensus Advice. However, that is simply not true. The GAC can provide advice that is not full consensus advice, and the Board will still have to "duly take into account" that advice. But, if it's full consensus advice (as all GAC advice has been to date), the Board will be required to consult with the GAC and try to reach a mutually acceptable solution if the Board votes to act inconsistently with that advice -- and that vote will now require a supermajority, thanks to the new Proposal.
So, there is no real change, except that if the GAC decides to offer non-full-consensus advice, it will not get all of the deference accorded to full-consensus advice. However, if the GAC sticks with the status quo (full consensus advice), then its advice will be treated with even greater deference, due to the newly-acquired supermajority vote.
In other words, if the GAC continues to do what it has always done, its advice will be even harder for the Board to reject. There's no reason that this would result in "no more GAC advice".
(If this is an implicit plea to require the Board to give the same deferential treatment to non-full-consensus advice as it does to full consensus advice, that is an absolute non-starter.)
Consequently the so-called special privilege repeatedly referred to by others would in fact very rarely happens
As noted above, there is every reason to believe that the special privilege will occur as often as it happens now, which is virtually every time the GAC acts.
1. The 2/3 threshold for the rejection of the GAC Advice by the Board was proposed but was not accepted unless the existing Simple Majority is retained However, if instead of either of Simple Majority a 60% threshold is taken, it should be combined with the so-called CARE-OUT CONCEPT .This implies that on the one hand the probability of having GAC advice is limited to the most lowest level , almost zero probability based on the argument mentioned in 1) above ,however, even if on a rare care there would be a GAC Advice with full consensus, that advice may be rejected by 60% of the Board’s Member
The combination of the 60% supermajority threshold and the carve-out is what has been proposed. I'm not certain of the rest of your point, especially since there's no basis for the claim that GAC advice will be any rarer than it is now.
1.
2. Should the Board agrees to the Initial (very improbable occurrence of GAC Advice), or if the initial advice is rejected but then was accepted as results of negotiation of the Board with GAC any one in the community could invoke IRP or just simply make a petition to recall the entire Board with only 3 SO/AC in favour excluding by alleging that Board acceptance of Advice was inconsistent with its mission or Bylaws, or Article of Incorporation. As results of application of so-called carve-out approach/concept GAC would excluded to exercise its legitimate right to participate in the decision making and defend the case
Again, this is an incorrect understanding of the proposal. Under the carve-out, the GAC will have every right to make it's case and to participate in every aspect of the escalation process -- except the decisional moment.
1. These unfavorable situation does not exist for any SO and AC at al
Other SO/ACs do not have the same privileged position as the GAC. If anything, that privileged position is strengthened by the Proposal, given the 60% supermajority. Depriving the GAC of its "second bite at the apple" is a small counterbalance to this privileged position.
1. in view of the above GAC has lost the battle in three DIFFERENT fronts
This score-keeping is incorrect (although I reject the idea that this should be cast as a "battle" between the GAC and other stakeholders). The GAC has won its supermajority vote battle. The GAC members signing on to the Minority Statement may believe the GAC has lost its (potential) ability to offer non-full-consensus advice and have it treated the same as full-consensus-advice, but I would hardly count that as a loss, since the likelihood of such a change is fairly low (and would likely have engendered a multistakeholder debate very much like the one we have had for many months). As far as current activities go, the GAC has lost nothing. The carve-out may be seen as a "loss" (although I prefer to think of it as a compromise, or an adjustment) and the less-privileged position that non-consensus advice will enjoy may also be seen as a loss, but these are balanced by the "win" of the supermajority vote.
1.
6 Some other communities said that in exchange of what GAC lost ,it has gained the ability to exercise the community power and become a decisional making community in some areas.
7 Such empowerment which did not exist for any SO/AC now is given to every SOs /ACs
8 That is not totally correct due to the following
8.1 Some of the power is now waived as results of application of so-called Carve-out
8.2 GAC has not decided and may never decide to exercise those powers atall,
The GAC's decisional power is only waived in very specific instances and only to a specific extent (decision-making); in every other case, the GAC's ability to participate is completely unfettered. If the GAC does not decide to exercise its decisional powers, then the whole issue of the "carve-out" is moot. In any event, the GAC will have the capacity to exercise those powers whenever it wants to.
9. In view of the above, there is a need to give a fresh look and reconsider the situation.
I don't see anything in the above, once certain misunderstandings are clarified, that gives rise to the need for a fresh look and reconsideration of the situation.
10. Based on the above understanding from the Minority Statement, wouldn’t be possible that the utmost efforts be made to find a win-win situation for every SO/AC?
I think we have a win-win in the current proposal. Every side of the equation may want a bigger win, but that's the essence of compromise and consensus.
11. Any of us is subject to make a mistake or misconception. The important issue is to duly correct the mistake .
I don't see the current proposal as a mistake. The only mistakes I see here are fundamental misunderstandings of the proposal.
Never is late. There is always an opportunity to remedy the problem.
However, it requires good will, spirit of collaboration, mutual understanding and freindly and healthy enviroment for resolution of the problem
Pelasse kindly be friendly and kindly avoid demonstrating any emotion and fully respect the IVCANN ETHIC
You may disagree or agree but pls avoid and offensive message
Regards
Kavouss
2016-02-21 20:58 GMT+01:00 Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>: All, Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our views.
Let me just be clear:
We have described and summarized the current situation with our statement. We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome of such discusion.
Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential) consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This consultation will take place on Tuesday.
Kind regards, Thomas Rickert
--- rickert.net<http://rickert.net>
Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>:
I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management.
For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following:
1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator
2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold
3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all
All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> <image001.png><http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...>
From: epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com> [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.
In any case let me place the current state on the record:
Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.
But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it.
These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living.
Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement.
In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line.
Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini
On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, wrote:
+2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto: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
-- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Matthew, Greg and CCWG colleagues I thought it would be useful ahead of tomorrow's CCWG Virtual Meeting in case you are not fully aware of the detail of the GAC process for reviewing the CCWG proposal, including the issues raised by the signatories to the Minority Statement by Government members and participants in the CCWG, if I recount this, as follows: i. The GAC will hold a 2 hour teleconference on the CCWG proposal with a focus on Rec.11 on Monday 29 February. ii. At its meeting in Marrakech, the GAC has several open sessions on 6 and 8 March to discuss the CCWG proposal and prepare its response as Chartering Organisation. One session on the 8th is specifically focussed on governmental participation in the empowered community. It is relevant to be reminded in the context of the Rec 11 carve out that in their responses to the CCWG third proposal, several governments have stated that they will support solely an advisory role and would not support a decisional voting role for the GAC. The GAC session at 16:00 on the 8th is allocated to finalising the GAC response as Chartering Organisation to the CCWG and the Supplementary Report. I understand that this is an open session. iii. Government ministers and senior officials will discuss the Accountability proposal and the role of governments in two open sessions at the biennial ICANN High Level Governmental Meeting which will be hosted by the Moroccan Digital Economy Minister H.E.M, Moulay Hafid Elalamy, on 7 March: 10.15-11:30: Session 1: IANA Stewardship Transition Outcomes - Introduction by Mr. Thomas Schneider, Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) - Presentation by Mr. Fadi Chehade, CEO and President of ICANN - Presentation by Mr. Larry Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and Administrator, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), US Department of Commerce. - Open Floor and exchange of Views * 11.45-13:15: Session 2: Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governments role in the new ICANN framework - Introduction by Mr. Thomas Schneider, GAC Chair on the role of governments in the ICANN and the importance of the contribution of public policy to ICANN policy development processes. - Presentation by Mr. Steve Crocker, President of the ICANN Board - Presentation by the Co-Chairs of the CCWG Accountability on the Multi-stakeholder model - Open Floor and exchange of Views focused on ICANN and the role of Government While they are not afforded the equivalent public platform of a Minority Statement, GAC members and participants in the CCWG negotiations who support the CCWG proposal and specifically the Recommendation 11 compromise, have had the opportunity to to explain their positions in detailed exchanges on the GAC mail list. As you know, the UK Government is one of those GAC representatives and we will participate in the upcoming discussions accordingly, in order to assist the Committee as one of the CCWG's Chartering Organisations, to reach a final, consensus-based position on the entire CCWG proposal. We support the statements of commitment made by several governments (including signatories to the Minority Statement) on the importance of continuing at this crucial stage to engage positively with colleagues in the ICANN stakeholder community in order to achieve a complete IANA stewardship proposal that has the full support of the community as required by the NTIA. I hope that this is helpful. With kind regards Mark Mark Carvell United Kingdom Representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 On 22 February 2016 at 08:47, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
+1 - thanks Greg for clearly outlining the state of play
On 2/22/2016 2:21 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
+1
________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
On Feb 21, 2016, at 8:08 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
My responses are inline below.
Greg
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Minority Statement
Dear All,
I have read and read the Minority Statement made by A GAC MEMBERS in CCWG which is now supported by 11 other governments.
It's worth noting that the other GAC members in the CCWG have not supported this Minority Statement, so it remains just that -- a minority statement.
Have you read the Minority Statement made by a GNSO Member in CCWG (Robin Gross) which is now supported by a number of other stakeholders? We should not emphasize one Minority Statement over another.
There serval messages in that Statement
GAC Situation at this very moment
1. In future only a full Consensus Advice in the absence of any formal objection would be considered by the Board which is quite different from existing situation . This make it very probable that as of the date of the transition coming in to force , NO MORE GAC ADVICE WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE Board due to the fact that, no matter how much efforts be made by 154 existing GAC Members, one single Government on any ground as it so wishes could block that Advice not to become eligible for consideration by the Board. This is a new working method that enshrining a clear VETO to null out efforts of the rest of the GAC members in this regard. This is resulted from the proposed ST18
This is not a new working method. This is not quite different from the existing situation. It is the current and longstanding working method of the GAC.
You seem to think that the Proposal says GAC advice won't even be considered by the Board unless it is full consensus Advice. However, that is simply not true. The GAC can provide advice that is not full consensus advice, and the Board will still have to "duly take into account" that advice. But, if it's full consensus advice (as all GAC advice has been to date), the Board will be required to consult with the GAC and try to reach a mutually acceptable solution if the Board votes to act inconsistently with that advice -- and that vote will now require a supermajority, thanks to the new Proposal.
So, there is no real change, except that if the GAC decides to offer non-full-consensus advice, it will not get all of the deference accorded to full-consensus advice. However, if the GAC sticks with the status quo (full consensus advice), then its advice will be treated with even greater deference, due to the newly-acquired supermajority vote.
In other words, if the GAC continues to do what it has always done, its advice will be even harder for the Board to reject. There's no reason that this would result in "no more GAC advice".
(If this is an implicit plea to require the Board to give the same deferential treatment to non-full-consensus advice as it does to full consensus advice, that is an absolute non-starter.)
Consequently the so-called special privilege repeatedly referred to by others would in fact very rarely happens
As noted above, there is every reason to believe that the special privilege will occur as often as it happens now, which is virtually every time the GAC acts.
1. The 2/3 threshold for the rejection of the GAC Advice by the Board was proposed but was not accepted unless the existing Simple Majority is retained However, if instead of either of Simple Majority a 60% threshold is taken, it should be combined with the so-called CARE-OUT CONCEPT .This implies that on the one hand the probability of having GAC advice is limited to the most lowest level , almost zero probability based on the argument mentioned in 1) above ,however, even if on a rare care there would be a GAC Advice with full consensus, that advice may be rejected by 60% of the Board’s Member
The combination of the 60% supermajority threshold and the carve-out is what has been proposed. I'm not certain of the rest of your point, especially since there's no basis for the claim that GAC advice will be any rarer than it is now.
1.
2. Should the Board agrees to the Initial (very improbable occurrence of GAC Advice), or if the initial advice is rejected but then was accepted as results of negotiation of the Board with GAC any one in the community could invoke IRP or just simply make a petition to recall the entire Board with only 3 SO/AC in favour excluding by alleging that Board acceptance of Advice was inconsistent with its mission or Bylaws, or Article of Incorporation. As results of application of so-called carve-out approach/concept GAC would excluded to exercise its legitimate right to participate in the decision making and defend the case
Again, this is an incorrect understanding of the proposal. Under the carve-out, the GAC will have every right to make it's case and to participate in every aspect of the escalation process -- except the decisional moment.
1. These unfavorable situation does not exist for any SO and AC at al
Other SO/ACs do not have the same privileged position as the GAC. If anything, that privileged position is strengthened by the Proposal, given the 60% supermajority. Depriving the GAC of its "second bite at the apple" is a small counterbalance to this privileged position.
1. in view of the above GAC has lost the battle in three DIFFERENT fronts
This score-keeping is incorrect (although I reject the idea that this should be cast as a "battle" between the GAC and other stakeholders). The GAC has won its supermajority vote battle. The GAC members signing on to the Minority Statement may believe the GAC has lost its (potential) ability to offer non-full-consensus advice and have it treated the same as full-consensus-advice, but I would hardly count that as a loss, since the likelihood of such a change is fairly low (and would likely have engendered a multistakeholder debate very much like the one we have had for many months). As far as current activities go, the GAC has lost nothing. The carve-out may be seen as a "loss" (although I prefer to think of it as a compromise, or an adjustment) and the less-privileged position that non-consensus advice will enjoy may also be seen as a loss, but these are balanced by the "win" of the supermajority vote.
1.
6 Some other communities said that in exchange of what GAC lost ,it has gained the ability to exercise the community power and become a decisional making community in some areas.
7 Such empowerment which did not exist for any SO/AC now is given to every SOs /ACs
8 That is not totally correct due to the following
8.1 Some of the power is now waived as results of application of so-called Carve-out
8.2 GAC has not decided and may never decide to exercise those powers atall,
The GAC's decisional power is only waived in very specific instances and only to a specific extent (decision-making); in every other case, the GAC's ability to participate is completely unfettered. If the GAC does not decide to exercise its decisional powers, then the whole issue of the "carve-out" is moot. In any event, the GAC will have the capacity to exercise those powers whenever it wants to.
9. In view of the above, there is a need to give a fresh look and reconsider the situation.
I don't see anything in the above, once certain misunderstandings are clarified, that gives rise to the need for a fresh look and reconsideration of the situation.
10. Based on the above understanding from the Minority Statement, wouldn’t be possible that the utmost efforts be made to find a win-win situation for every SO/AC?
I think we have a win-win in the current proposal. Every side of the equation may want a bigger win, but that's the essence of compromise and consensus.
11. Any of us is subject to make a mistake or misconception. The important issue is to duly correct the mistake .
I don't see the current proposal as a mistake. The only mistakes I see here are fundamental misunderstandings of the proposal.
Never is late. There is always an opportunity to remedy the problem.
However, it requires good will, spirit of collaboration, mutual understanding and freindly and healthy enviroment for resolution of the problem
Pelasse kindly be friendly and kindly avoid demonstrating any emotion and fully respect the IVCANN ETHIC
You may disagree or agree but pls avoid and offensive message
Regards
Kavouss
2016-02-21 20:58 GMT+01:00 Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto: thomas@rickert.net>>: All, Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our views.
Let me just be clear:
We have described and summarized the current situation with our statement. We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome of such discusion.
Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential) consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This consultation will take place on Tuesday.
Kind regards, Thomas Rickert
--- rickert.net<http://rickert.net>
Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>:
I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management.
For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following:
1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator
2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold
3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all
All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto: paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key< http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...
<image001.png>< http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...
From: epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com> [mailto: epilisse@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.
In any case let me place the current state on the record:
Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.
But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it.
These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living.
Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement.
In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line.
Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini
On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto: egmorris1@toast.net>>, wrote:
+2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto: Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<; https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto: Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<; https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto: Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<; https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto: 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
--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987
CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thank you Thomas, I also think it will be very important that we have actual text to discuss. The relevant language in the draft of 17th was imprecise, and I’m afraid that didn’t help. I don’t believe we will have enough time to come to some conceptual agreement in the meeting on Tuesday, and then try and craft the specific text offline. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 2:58 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: epilisse@gmail.com; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs All, Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our views. Let me just be clear: We have described and summarized the current situation with our statement. We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome of such discusion. Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential) consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This consultation will take place on Tuesday. Kind regards, Thomas Rickert --- rickert.net<http://rickert.net> Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>: I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management. For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following: 1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator 2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold 3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we? Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> <image001.png><http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com> [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting. In any case let me place the current state on the record: Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly. But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it. These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living. Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement. In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line. Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, wrote: +2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Paul Pls kindly do not use that type of issue. Removal of the Board in non IRP matter must be with FOUR SO/AC agreement . This is the remedial point Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 21 Feb 2016, at 20:58, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
All, Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our views.
Let me just be clear:
We have described and summarized the current situation with our statement. We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome of such discusion.
Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential) consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This consultation will take place on Tuesday.
Kind regards, Thomas Rickert
--- rickert.net
Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:
I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management.
For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following:
1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator 2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold 3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all
All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <image001.png>
From: epilisse@gmail.com [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.
In any case let me place the current state on the record:
Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.
But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it.
These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living.
Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement.
In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line.
Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini
On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>, wrote:
+2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions.
_______________________________________________ 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 Grec thank you. There was no misunderstanding at all, You have given your views but pls kindly directly reply to the points raised in the Minority statement to avoid any misunderstanding between us. I just raised omy understanding of the message but a direct reply to the point raised may facilitate the discussion tomorrow or later. THANKS AGAIN AND Best Regards Kavouss 2016-02-22 6:52 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Paul Pls kindly do not use that type of issue. Removal of the Board in non IRP matter must be with FOUR SO/AC agreement . This is the remedial point Regards Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 21 Feb 2016, at 20:58, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
All, Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our views.
Let me just be clear:
We have described and summarized the current situation with our statement. We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome of such discusion.
Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential) consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This consultation will take place on Tuesday.
Kind regards, Thomas Rickert
--- rickert.net
Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:
I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management.
For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following:
1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator
2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold
3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all
All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
<image001.png> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...>
*From:* epilisse@gmail.com [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com <epilisse@gmail.com>]
*Sent:* Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM *To:* CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.
In any case let me place the current state on the record:
Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.
But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it.
These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living.
Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement.
In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line.
Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini
On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>, wrote:
+2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions.
_______________________________________________ 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 Kavous I disagree … as did the community in the last discussion. You now wish to reopen the discussion – a desire I will oppose. If you succced in reopening this issue then I will push to reopen others … its that simple. Either you believe in the process (as I do) or you abuse it … Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:52 AM To: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> Cc: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; epilisse@gmail.com; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear Paul Pls kindly do not use that type of issue. Removal of the Board in non IRP matter must be with FOUR SO/AC agreement . This is the remedial point Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 21 Feb 2016, at 20:58, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> > wrote: All, Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our views. Let me just be clear: We have described and summarized the current situation with our statement. We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome of such discusion. Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential) consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This consultation will take place on Tuesday. Kind regards, Thomas Rickert --- rickert.net <http://rickert.net> Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> >: I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management. For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following: 1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator 2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold 3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we? Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> <image001.png> From: epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com> [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting. In any case let me place the current state on the record: Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly. But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it. These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living. Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement. In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line. Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> >, wrote: +2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Paul, I do not know what are you talking about? Please kindly note that I have just asked that pargraph 51 of Rec 2 be discussed. Perhaps others wants to reopen other issues,then please kindly address yourself to the, Be kind and friend Pls kindly consider that intimidation does not work We need to have friendly ,healthy discussion. Best Regards Kavouss 2016-02-22 21:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:
Dear Kavous
I disagree … as did the community in the last discussion. You now wish to reopen the discussion – a desire I will oppose. If you succced in reopening this issue then I will push to reopen others … its that simple.
Either you believe in the process (as I do) or you abuse it …
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...>
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, February 22, 2016 12:52 AM *To:* Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> *Cc:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; epilisse@gmail.com; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
Dear Paul
Pls kindly do not use that type of issue.
Removal of the Board in non IRP matter must be with FOUR SO/AC agreement .
This is the remedial point
Regards
Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 21 Feb 2016, at 20:58, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
All,
Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our views.
Let me just be clear:
We have described and summarized the current situation with our statement. We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome of such discusion.
Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential) consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This consultation will take place on Tuesday.
Kind regards,
Thomas Rickert
---
rickert.net
Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:
I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management.
For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following:
1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator
2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold
3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all
All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
<image001.png> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...>
*From:* epilisse@gmail.com [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com <epilisse@gmail.com>]
*Sent:* Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM *To:* CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.
In any case let me place the current state on the record:
Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.
But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it.
These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living.
Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement.
In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line.
Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini
On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>, wrote:
+2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions.
_______________________________________________ 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 Kavous I have no interest in intimidating you. I just disagree with almost everything you’ve said and will continue to correct the record whenever you misstate the facts. For example, in this communication, you say “I have just asked that paragraph 51 of Rec 2 be discussed.” This is, of course, wrong as the more than 30 emails I have from you in the past 72 hours address Rec 1 and Rec 11 as well in any number of different permutations. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 3:43 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Eberhard Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear Paul, I do not know what are you talking about? Please kindly note that I have just asked that pargraph 51 of Rec 2 be discussed. Perhaps others wants to reopen other issues,then please kindly address yourself to the, Be kind and friend Pls kindly consider that intimidation does not work We need to have friendly ,healthy discussion. Best Regards Kavouss 2016-02-22 21:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> >: Dear Kavous I disagree … as did the community in the last discussion. You now wish to reopen the discussion – a desire I will oppose. If you succced in reopening this issue then I will push to reopen others … its that simple. Either you believe in the process (as I do) or you abuse it … Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> ] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:52 AM To: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> > Cc: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> >; epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com> ; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net> >; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear Paul Pls kindly do not use that type of issue. Removal of the Board in non IRP matter must be with FOUR SO/AC agreement . This is the remedial point Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 21 Feb 2016, at 20:58, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> > wrote: All, Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our views. Let me just be clear: We have described and summarized the current situation with our statement. We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome of such discusion. Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential) consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This consultation will take place on Tuesday. Kind regards, Thomas Rickert --- rickert.net <http://rickert.net> Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> >: I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management. For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following: 1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator 2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold 3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we? Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> <image001.png> From: epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com> [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting. In any case let me place the current state on the record: Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly. But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it. These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living. Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement. In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line. Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> >, wrote: +2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I think actually Kavouss is referring to paragraph 72 in Recommendation 2, which is the thresholds paragraph J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Date: Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:53 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: 'Eberhard Lisse' <epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, 'Lisse Eberhard' <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear Kavous I have no interest in intimidating you. I just disagree with almost everything you’ve said and will continue to correct the record whenever you misstate the facts. For example, in this communication, you say “I have just asked that paragraph 51 of Rec 2 be discussed.” This is, of course, wrong as the more than 30 emails I have from you in the past 72 hours address Rec 1 and Rec 11 as well in any number of different permutations. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....> [cid:image002.png@01D16D89.1D846CA0]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_ev...> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 3:43 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Eberhard Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear Paul, I do not know what are you talking about? Please kindly note that I have just asked that pargraph 51 of Rec 2 be discussed. Perhaps others wants to reopen other issues,then please kindly address yourself to the, Be kind and friend Pls kindly consider that intimidation does not work We need to have friendly ,healthy discussion. Best Regards Kavouss 2016-02-22 21:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>: Dear Kavous I disagree … as did the community in the last discussion. You now wish to reopen the discussion – a desire I will oppose. If you succced in reopening this issue then I will push to reopen others … its that simple. Either you believe in the process (as I do) or you abuse it … Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....> [cid:image003.png@01D16D89.1D846CA0]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_ev...> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:52 AM To: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> Cc: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>; epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear Paul Pls kindly do not use that type of issue. Removal of the Board in non IRP matter must be with FOUR SO/AC agreement . This is the remedial point Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 21 Feb 2016, at 20:58, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote: All, Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our views. Let me just be clear: We have described and summarized the current situation with our statement. We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome of such discusion. Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential) consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This consultation will take place on Tuesday. Kind regards, Thomas Rickert --- rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=M...> Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>: I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management. For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following: 1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator 2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold 3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we? Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....> <image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_ev...> From:epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com> [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting. In any case let me place the current state on the record: Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly. But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it. These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living. Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement. In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line. Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, wrote: +2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=NAT7PUKFFrCwlU8Pfk9bPa_y2YX4NVypYE8OuNkjhX4&s=_t-SR8QXVlpMBCbGZrrDL4QTuZGJ4GtskbDBDpLpL20&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=NAT7PUKFFrCwlU8Pfk9bPa_y2YX4NVypYE8OuNkjhX4&s=_t-SR8QXVlpMBCbGZrrDL4QTuZGJ4GtskbDBDpLpL20&e=>
Ok that makes more sense thanks Becky. -James From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> Date: Monday 22 February 2016 at 9:00 p.m. To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: 'Eberhard Lisse' <epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>>, 'Lisse Eberhard' <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs I think actually Kavouss is referring to paragraph 72 in Recommendation 2, which is the thresholds paragraph J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office:+1.202.533.2932 Mobile:+1.202.352.6367 /neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Date: Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:53 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: 'Eberhard Lisse' <epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, 'Lisse Eberhard' <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear Kavous I have no interest in intimidating you. I just disagree with almost everything you’ve said and will continue to correct the record whenever you misstate the facts. For example, in this communication, you say “I have just asked that paragraph 51 of Rec 2 be discussed.” This is, of course, wrong as the more than 30 emails I have from you in the past 72 hours address Rec 1 and Rec 11 as well in any number of different permutations. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....> [cid:image002.png@01D16D89.1D846CA0]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_ev...> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 3:43 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Eberhard Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear Paul, I do not know what are you talking about? Please kindly note that I have just asked that pargraph 51 of Rec 2 be discussed. Perhaps others wants to reopen other issues,then please kindly address yourself to the, Be kind and friend Pls kindly consider that intimidation does not work We need to have friendly ,healthy discussion. Best Regards Kavouss 2016-02-22 21:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>: Dear Kavous I disagree … as did the community in the last discussion. You now wish to reopen the discussion – a desire I will oppose. If you succced in reopening this issue then I will push to reopen others … its that simple. Either you believe in the process (as I do) or you abuse it … Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....> [cid:image003.png@01D16D89.1D846CA0]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_ev...> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:52 AM To: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> Cc: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>; epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear Paul Pls kindly do not use that type of issue. Removal of the Board in non IRP matter must be with FOUR SO/AC agreement . This is the remedial point Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 21 Feb 2016, at 20:58, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote: All, Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our views. Let me just be clear: We have described and summarized the current situation with our statement. We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome of such discusion. Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential) consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This consultation will take place on Tuesday. Kind regards, Thomas Rickert --- rickert.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=M...> Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>: I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management. For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following: 1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator 2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold 3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we? Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....> <image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_ev...> From:epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com> [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting. In any case let me place the current state on the record: Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly. But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it. These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living. Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement. In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line. Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, wrote: +2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=NAT7PUKFFrCwlU8Pfk9bPa_y2YX4NVypYE8OuNkjhX4&s=_t-SR8QXVlpMBCbGZrrDL4QTuZGJ4GtskbDBDpLpL20&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=NAT7PUKFFrCwlU8Pfk9bPa_y2YX4NVypYE8OuNkjhX4&s=_t-SR8QXVlpMBCbGZrrDL4QTuZGJ4GtskbDBDpLpL20&e=>
, Dear Paul, Thank you very much for your kind message. Yes I referred to REC.1 and 11 almost all the time but since you misunderstood me on that regard let me clarify the case. In just referred to in those several e.-mails to the concerns expressed by other people. If you kindly look at them the first one said, the message in Minority statements said ....That was either quotation or sharing my understanding from those messages with a view to possibly trigger discussions in order that people shed some light on the matter. That helped to better analyze the situation. After lengthy discussion, I said, one possible way would be to clarify the threshold for the removal of the entire Board which is Rec.2 which could possibly REMEDY some concerns on those two other Recommendations Off list ,exchange of views with some colleagues indicated that I was almost right that clarification on Rec.2 may ,just help. Rather than demonstrating emotions and intimidating that If I do this you will do that really DOES NOT HELP. Let us put hand in hand, thoughts on thoughts, and try find a more solid solution for some .if not all. Issues on the table I do not remember your face, but I know who you are I think you and few others like you are the key players in this game. Please use all your knowledge, your qualifications and your competency to suggest some sort of compromise. Observance of mutual respect and fair negotiations area the key elements in this very critical moment. In CCWG I wish you a nice afternoon and hope to hear from you tomorrow at 06,00 UTC Pls do not forget to be the first telling me good morning Kavouss (because of age seniority) Good time Kavouss 2016-02-22 22:07 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>:
Ok that makes more sense thanks Becky.
-James
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> Date: Monday 22 February 2016 at 9:00 p.m. To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: 'Eberhard Lisse' <epilisse@gmail.com>, 'Lisse Eberhard' < directors@omadhina.net>, 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net>, 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
I think actually Kavouss is referring to paragraph 72 in Recommendation 2, which is the thresholds paragraph
*J. Beckwith Burr* *Neustar, Inc.*/Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
*Office:*+1.202.533.2932 *Mobile:*+1.202.352.6367 */**neustar.biz* <http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Date: Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:53 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: 'Eberhard Lisse' <epilisse@gmail.com>, Accountability Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, 'Thomas Rickert' < thomas@rickert.net>, 'Lisse Eberhard' <directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
Dear Kavous
I have no interest in intimidating you. I just disagree with almost everything you’ve said and will continue to correct the record whenever you misstate the facts.
For example, in this communication, you say “I have just asked that paragraph 51 of Rec 2 be discussed.” This is, of course, wrong as the more than 30 emails I have from you in the past 72 hours address Rec 1 and Rec 11 as well in any number of different permutations.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_ev...>
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Monday, February 22, 2016 3:43 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Cc:* Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Eberhard Lisse < epilisse@gmail.com>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
Dear Paul,
I do not know what are you talking about?
Please kindly note that I have just asked that pargraph 51 of Rec 2 be discussed.
Perhaps others wants to reopen other issues,then please kindly address yourself to the,
Be kind and friend
Pls kindly consider that intimidation does not work
We need to have friendly ,healthy discussion.
Best Regards
Kavouss
2016-02-22 21:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:
Dear Kavous
I disagree … as did the community in the last discussion. You now wish to reopen the discussion – a desire I will oppose. If you succced in reopening this issue then I will push to reopen others … its that simple.
Either you believe in the process (as I do) or you abuse it …
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_ev...>
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, February 22, 2016 12:52 AM *To:* Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> *Cc:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; epilisse@gmail.com; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
Dear Paul
Pls kindly do not use that type of issue.
Removal of the Board in non IRP matter must be with FOUR SO/AC agreement .
This is the remedial point
Regards
Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 21 Feb 2016, at 20:58, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
All,
Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our views.
Let me just be clear:
We have described and summarized the current situation with our statement. We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome of such discusion.
Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential) consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This consultation will take place on Tuesday.
Kind regards,
Thomas Rickert
---
rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=M...>
Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:
I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management.
For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following:
1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator
2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold
3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all
All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....>
<image001.png> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_ev...>
*From:*epilisse@gmail.com [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com <epilisse@gmail.com>]
*Sent:* Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM *To:* CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.
In any case let me place the current state on the record:
Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.
But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it.
These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living.
Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement.
In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line.
Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini
On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>, wrote:
+2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
I look forward to wishing you a very good morning tomorrow Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:40 PM To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; Eberhard Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs , Dear Paul, Thank you very much for your kind message. Yes I referred to REC.1 and 11 almost all the time but since you misunderstood me on that regard let me clarify the case. In just referred to in those several e.-mails to the concerns expressed by other people. If you kindly look at them the first one said, the message in Minority statements said ....That was either quotation or sharing my understanding from those messages with a view to possibly trigger discussions in order that people shed some light on the matter. That helped to better analyze the situation. After lengthy discussion, I said, one possible way would be to clarify the threshold for the removal of the entire Board which is Rec.2 which could possibly REMEDY some concerns on those two other Recommendations Off list ,exchange of views with some colleagues indicated that I was almost right that clarification on Rec.2 may ,just help. Rather than demonstrating emotions and intimidating that If I do this you will do that really DOES NOT HELP. Let us put hand in hand, thoughts on thoughts, and try find a more solid solution for some .if not all. Issues on the table I do not remember your face, but I know who you are I think you and few others like you are the key players in this game. Please use all your knowledge, your qualifications and your competency to suggest some sort of compromise. Observance of mutual respect and fair negotiations area the key elements in this very critical moment. In CCWG I wish you a nice afternoon and hope to hear from you tomorrow at 06,00 UTC Pls do not forget to be the first telling me good morning Kavouss (because of age seniority) Good time Kavouss 2016-02-22 22:07 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net> >: Ok that makes more sense thanks Becky. -James From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> > Date: Monday 22 February 2016 at 9:00 p.m. To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> >, 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > Cc: 'Eberhard Lisse' <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com> >, 'Lisse Eberhard' <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net> >, 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >, 'CCWG Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs I think actually Kavouss is referring to paragraph 72 in Recommendation 2, which is the thresholds paragraph J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office:+1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile:+1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / <http://www.neustar.biz> neustar.biz From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > Date: Monday, February 22, 2016 at 3:53 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > Cc: 'Eberhard Lisse' <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com> >, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >, 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >, 'Lisse Eberhard' <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear Kavous I have no interest in intimidating you. I just disagree with almost everything you’ve said and will continue to correct the record whenever you misstate the facts. For example, in this communication, you say “I have just asked that paragraph 51 of Rec 2 be discussed.” This is, of course, wrong as the more than 30 emails I have from you in the past 72 hours address Rec 1 and Rec 11 as well in any number of different permutations. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....> Link to my PGP Key <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_ev...> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 3:43 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >; Eberhard Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com> >; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net> >; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear Paul, I do not know what are you talking about? Please kindly note that I have just asked that pargraph 51 of Rec 2 be discussed. Perhaps others wants to reopen other issues,then please kindly address yourself to the, Be kind and friend Pls kindly consider that intimidation does not work We need to have friendly ,healthy discussion. Best Regards Kavouss 2016-02-22 21:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> >: Dear Kavous I disagree … as did the community in the last discussion. You now wish to reopen the discussion – a desire I will oppose. If you succced in reopening this issue then I will push to reopen others … its that simple. Either you believe in the process (as I do) or you abuse it … Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....> Link to my PGP Key <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_ev...> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> ] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:52 AM To: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> > Cc: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> >; epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com> ; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net> >; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear Paul Pls kindly do not use that type of issue. Removal of the Board in non IRP matter must be with FOUR SO/AC agreement . This is the remedial point Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 21 Feb 2016, at 20:58, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> > wrote: All, Eberhard is free to express his views on the co-chairs. We all have our views. Let me just be clear: We have described and summarized the current situation with our statement. We have not reopened a discussion nor predetermined the outcome of such discusion. Given the situation, there are multiple options for the group to consider and to proceed on. These options will have different (potential) consequences and we did not and do not deem it appropriate for the co-chairs to make such determination without consulting with the CCWG. This consultation will take place on Tuesday. Kind regards, Thomas Rickert --- rickert.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rickert.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=M...> Am 21.02.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> >: I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management. For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following: 1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator 2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold 3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we? Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....> Link to my PGP Key <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rsaconference.com_ev...> <image001.png> From:epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com> [mailto:epilisse@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting. In any case let me place the current state on the record: Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly. But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it. These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living. Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement. In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line. Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> >, wrote: +2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
participants (28)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andrew Sullivan -
Avri Doria -
Burr, Becky -
Chartier, Mike S -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Edward Morris -
epilisse＠gmail.com -
Greg Shatan -
James Gannon -
Jordan Carter -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Kavouss Arasteh -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Marilyn Cade -
Mark Carvell -
Matthew Shears -
Megan.Richards＠ec.europa.eu -
Mueller, Milton L -
Nigel Roberts -
Olga Cavalli -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Perez Galindo, Rafael -
Phil Buckingham -
Phil Corwin -
Schaefer, Brett -
Seun Ojedeji -
Thomas Rickert