Indeed.  For all intents and purposes that entire week is blacked out -- Sent from myMail app for Android Wednesday, 02 September 2015, 09:01PM -04:00 from Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com> :

Note that, for those of us of the Jewish faith (and thus not eligible to buy domains in .bible), Yom Kippur (a/k/a the holiest day on the Jewish calendar) starts the evening of September 22nd and ends after dark on September 23rd.

Greg

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Alice Jansen < alice.jansen@icann.org > wrote:

...

Dear all, Please record your availability for a face-to-face meeting in September (or early october) via this doodle poll -  http://doodle.com/c8iexds666hv6ygt   We would be very grateful if you could add you input by Monday, 7 September – 23:59 UTC. Thanks Best Alice  

_______________________________________________ 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

All, I am of the opinion that a public (but bilateral) meeting with the board, who will after all take the formal decision on the CCWG proposal and will be responsible for that, is perfectly normal and should be considered as part of a sensible, legitimate procedure Best, Roelof From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: donderdag 3 september 2015 03:17 To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Your input needed - Doodle poll - Sept F2F Several times during tonight’s call I raised the question in the chatroom of what the process would be going forward. That is, how would the CCWG’s consideration of this (not yet altogether clear) input from the Board be integrated with the still open comment period on the CCWG proposal? I don’t have a clear suggestion for an answer to that after just getting off tonight’s call. But I am somewhat uncomfortable with a the concept of a bilateral Board-CCWG meeting that is in some sense a parallel process to the CCWG’s consideration of all other comments submitted by the global community. If there is a pre-Dublin F2F it should, IMHO, be multilateral (encompassing the full community) and not bilateral. So I am not saying that a F2F should not be held, but only that process this has to be considered very carefully and in the context of what is the proper and legitimate procedure for the CCWG to arrive at a final proposal taking all comments into consideration and given appropriate weight. It can’t be an ad hoc, made up on the fly process because that can be criticized as unfair. Finally, while I am not particularly observant, please if there is a meeting don’t schedule it on Yom Kippur. 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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 9:05 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Your input needed - Doodle poll - Sept F2F Indeed. For all intents and purposes that entire week is blacked out -- Sent from myMail app for Android Wednesday, 02 September 2015, 09:01PM -04:00 from Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>: Note that, for those of us of the Jewish faith (and thus not eligible to buy domains in .bible), Yom Kippur (a/k/a the holiest day on the Jewish calendar) starts the evening of September 22nd and ends after dark on September 23rd. Greg On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org<//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aalice.jansen@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Please record your availability for a face-to-face meeting in September (or early october) via this doodle poll - http://doodle.com/c8iexds666hv6ygt We would be very grateful if you could add you input by Monday, 7 September – 23:59 UTC. Thanks Best Alice _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@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: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

On 03/09/2015 13:09, Roelof Meijer wrote:

All,

I am of the opinion that a public (but bilateral) meeting with the board, who will after all take the formal decision on the CCWG proposal and will be responsible for that, is perfectly normal and should be considered as part of a sensible, legitimate procedure

I agree, although I will find it very difficult to make the dates suggested, and very regretable to miss it. That said, as for "the board, who will after all take the formal decision on the CCWG proposal", it is worth reminding ourselves that we have been promised a form of co-decision on this, pursuant to the Board resolution of 16th October 2014 https://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-board/transcript-board-16oct14-en.pdf (See pages 13-17 of the transcript) So this process is complete when we and the Board have reached agreement. It does not conclude with the Board taking a final decision that may vary from our proposal, and which we may not accept: they may of course disagree with our proposal, but if they reject it the process continues until we reach a resolution. Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA

Thanks for that response, Bruce. I believe the CCWG still needs to consider how such a F2F exchange should be integrated with the process of evaluating and reacting to public comments, and whether another round of comments will be required if fundamental changes are made to the proposal as the result of any F2F meeting. Best regards, 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 -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 10:50 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Your input needed - Doodle poll - Sept F2F Hello Phil,

...

But I am somewhat uncomfortable with a the concept of a bilateral Board-CCWG meeting that is in some sense a parallel process to the CCWG’s consideration of all other comments submitted by the global community. If there is a pre-Dublin F2F it should, IMHO, be multilateral (encompassing the full community) and not bilateral.

Actually there is no reason that the CCWG can’t invite the wider community to come along to the F2F. For example Thomas Schneider as chair of the GAC could present the GAC input, Alan Greenberg could present the ALAC comments etc, and have a dialog with the CCWG. I expect that ICANN could look at providing travel funding to ensure that the ICANN groups making substantive comments in the public comment forum have an opportunity to present in person. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ 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: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

Oh, I forgot, Abu Dhabi or Addis Ababa between Brussels and New York :-)-O On 2015-09-03 09:22, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:

Alice,

we need to know where this will be done at the time the poll closes and the date is fixed.

I propose one of the following venues: Windhoek (not entirely in jest :-)-O), Amsterdam, Brussels, New York or Washington in descending order :-)-O

el

On 2015-09-03 01:48, Alice Jansen wrote:

...

Dear all, Please record your availability for a face-to-face meeting in September (or early october) via this doodle poll - *http://doodle.com/c8iexds666hv6ygt * We would be very grateful if you could add you input by Monday, 7 September – 23:59 UTC. Thanks Best Alice [...]

-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse 4-5, St Annes Walk <Directors@omadhina.net> Alderney, Guernsey, GY9 3JZ Omadhina Internet Services Ltd British Channel Islands

James et al.: I can't imagine how this development, i.e., the board seemingly exercising some semblance of authority over the broader community process, will not lead to renewed political turbulence in Washington. Even if there is no particular leverage, the mere perception may well be enough kindling. Of course dialog should continue among all stakeholders and interests including the board. Even the slightest hint, however, that the public comment process is being bypassed or superseded by other dialogs/negotiations may trigger concerns of a lack of transparency and side-dealing, i.e., some of the very conditions that fueled the call for greater accountability in the first place. Just thinking out loud. Ken ITI On Sep 3, 2015, at 10:43 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: As per the Doodle and last nights call "The ICANN Board of Directors proposes that the CCWG-Accountability hold a public meeting in Los Angeles in late September to continue the dialogue with the Board on the CCWG proposal” -James On 3 Sep 2015, at 09:31, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> wrote: Oh, I forgot, Abu Dhabi or Addis Ababa between Brussels and New York :-)-O On 2015-09-03 09:22, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Alice, we need to know where this will be done at the time the poll closes and the date is fixed. I propose one of the following venues: Windhoek (not entirely in jest :-)-O), Amsterdam, Brussels, New York or Washington in descending order :-)-O el On 2015-09-03 01:48, Alice Jansen wrote: Dear all, Please record your availability for a face-to-face meeting in September (or early october) via this doodle poll - *http://doodle.com/c8iexds666hv6ygt * We would be very grateful if you could add you input by Monday, 7 September – 23:59 UTC. Thanks Best Alice [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse 4-5, St Annes Walk <Directors@omadhina.net<mailto:Directors@omadhina.net>> Alderney, Guernsey, GY9 3JZ Omadhina Internet Services Ltd British Channel Islands _______________________________________________ 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

Thanks, James. I agree with your views. If the course you outline below is followed - to treat the board's voice as one among many and to respect the bottom-up community approach, as reflected in the revised accountability draft and ongoing 'fine-tuning' - then I would anticipate a positive reception from Capitol Hill. Even if a few loose ends remain by Dublin, the momentum will be clear and hopefully all parties will be pulling in the same direction. Cheers, Ken ITI On Sep 3, 2015, at 1:53 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Hi Ken, I think that there is a fine line here that the CCWG needs to navigate, and indeed that the board should be aware of. There is a notable difference between the board exercising authority/veto/power over the work of the CCWG and the board giving input as an important stakeholder in the accountability process. We should take the boards comments and eventual input into consideration in our work but given that the board is one stakeholder amongst many, if the boards final input does not align with the work of the CCWG and the vehicles by which the community has come to consensus on how to implement them then we need to move ahead with our work. As to the suggestion that the board believes that their approach is not one of a rewrite and is merely an alternative method of implementation I wouud suggest that many in this group had alternatives and ideas, and they were fleshed out and worked through systematically over the last number of months. The time for addressing the fundamental questions of how to enforce the powers that the community has enumerated was in the working groups over the last number of months with the community. To come in at this extremely late stage, and to propose what many in the community consider a fundamental rewrite of the CCWGs proposal is not conducive to a strong relationship between the board and the CCWG. To many, rightly or wrongly it appears that the board wishes to impose a top down model of restructuring instead of engaging in the communities work over the last number of months in a constructive manner, we have on a number of occasions asked the board to genuinely participate in the CCWG to avoid exactly this scenario, and until the last short number of weeks we did not have that engagement at any meaningful level. For the accountability proposal, and indeed the transition in general to be considered a representative multistakeholder bottom up work product then the wishes of the community as set out in the proposal must be respected by the board. If we deviate from that we have lost our way. I truly hope that this does not happen and that the board will recognise that the work of the CCWG is based on solid well researched foundations and based in sound legal advice. Please respect the communities collective intelligence and lets not go down the route that we did on the call last night of talking about false agreement on principals and “Lets let the lawyers go off and work this out for us”. Its undermines this whole process to belittle the work of the CCWG in this manner and I hope that this won’t be the approach that the CEO and the board takes going forward. Engage us in constructive dialogue and not slash and burn rewrites of the basic tenets of our proposal. -James On 3 Sep 2015, at 10:30, Salaets, Ken <ksalaets@itic.org<mailto:ksalaets@itic.org>> wrote: James et al.: I can't imagine how this development, i.e., the board seemingly exercising some semblance of authority over the broader community process, will not lead to renewed political turbulence in Washington. Even if there is no particular leverage, the mere perception may well be enough kindling. Of course dialog should continue among all stakeholders and interests including the board. Even the slightest hint, however, that the public comment process is being bypassed or superseded by other dialogs/negotiations may trigger concerns of a lack of transparency and side-dealing, i.e., some of the very conditions that fueled the call for greater accountability in the first place. Just thinking out loud. Ken ITI On Sep 3, 2015, at 10:43 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: As per the Doodle and last nights call "The ICANN Board of Directors proposes that the CCWG-Accountability hold a public meeting in Los Angeles in late September to continue the dialogue with the Board on the CCWG proposal” -James On 3 Sep 2015, at 09:31, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> wrote: Oh, I forgot, Abu Dhabi or Addis Ababa between Brussels and New York :-)-O On 2015-09-03 09:22, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Alice, we need to know where this will be done at the time the poll closes and the date is fixed. I propose one of the following venues: Windhoek (not entirely in jest :-)-O), Amsterdam, Brussels, New York or Washington in descending order :-)-O el On 2015-09-03 01:48, Alice Jansen wrote: Dear all, Please record your availability for a face-to-face meeting in September (or early october) via this doodle poll - *http://doodle.com/c8iexds666hv6ygt * We would be very grateful if you could add you input by Monday, 7 September – 23:59 UTC. Thanks Best Alice [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse 4-5, St Annes Walk <Directors@omadhina.net<mailto:Directors@omadhina.net>> Alderney, Guernsey, GY9 3JZ Omadhina Internet Services Ltd British Channel Islands _______________________________________________ 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

And I had hopes :-)-O So, it'll definitively be LA? Then around the weekend would be ideal because the Board is there anyway. el On 2015-09-03 09:41, James Gannon wrote:

As per the Doodle and last nights call

"The ICANN Board of Directors proposes that the CCWG-Accountability hold a public meeting in Los Angeles in late September to continue the dialogue with the Board on the CCWG proposal”

-James

...

On 3 Sep 2015, at 09:31, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>> wrote:

Oh, I forgot,

Abu Dhabi or Addis Ababa between Brussels and New York :-)-O

On 2015-09-03 09:22, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:

...

Alice,

we need to know where this will be done at the time the poll closes and the date is fixed.

I propose one of the following venues: Windhoek (not entirely in jest :-)-O), Amsterdam, Brussels, New York or Washington in descending order :-)-O

el [...]

-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/