Dear Co-Chairs: We have made some clarifying changes to the memo we sent earlier this week; a revised version is attached. We would appreciate it if staff could post this in place of the prior version. Thank you. Rosemary and Holly Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com www.adlercolvin.com _____________________________ Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.
Hello Rosemary, I think it will be helpful if you provide the redline version of this document as well. Thanks On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Rosemary E. Fei <rfei@adlercolvin.com> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs:
We have made some clarifying changes to the memo we sent earlier this week; a revised version is attached.
We would appreciate it if staff could post this in place of the prior version.
Thank you.
Rosemary and Holly
Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com www.adlercolvin.com
_____________________________
Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Understood, Seun. Will do. For “technical reasons” (i.e., my lack of technological know how), we will get this out on Monday. Rosemary From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 3:31 PM To: Rosemary E. Fei Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe@sanchez.mx); Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr); Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com); ICANN-Adler; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo Hello Rosemary, I think it will be helpful if you provide the redline version of this document as well. Thanks On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Rosemary E. Fei <rfei@adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs: We have made some clarifying changes to the memo we sent earlier this week; a revised version is attached. We would appreciate it if staff could post this in place of the prior version. Thank you. Rosemary and Holly Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> www.adlercolvin.com<http://www.adlercolvin.com> _____________________________ Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email. _______________________________________________ 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
If both the prior and current versions are available and in Word, i.e. .doc or .docx formats, we can generate the comparison (redline) version in a minute. Steve On Sep 26, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Rosemary E. Fei <rfei@adlercolvin.com> wrote:
Understood, Seun. Will do. For “technical reasons” (i.e., my lack of technological know how), we will get this out on Monday.
Rosemary
From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 3:31 PM To: Rosemary E. Fei Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe@sanchez.mx); Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr); Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com); ICANN-Adler;accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo
Hello Rosemary,
I think it will be helpful if you provide the redline version of this document as well.
Thanks
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Rosemary E. Fei <rfei@adlercolvin.com> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs:
We have made some clarifying changes to the memo we sent earlier this week; a revised version is attached.
We would appreciate it if staff could post this in place of the prior version.
Thank you.
Rosemary and Holly
Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com www.adlercolvin.com
_____________________________ Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Here is a quick redline that I pulled. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com<mailto:steve@shinkuro.com>> Date: Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 3:41 PM To: "Rosemary E. Fei" <rfei@adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>> Cc: ICANN-Adler <ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, "Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>)" <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo If both the prior and current versions are available and in Word, i.e. .doc or .docx formats, we can generate the comparison (redline) version in a minute. Steve On Sep 26, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Rosemary E. Fei <rfei@adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>> wrote: Understood, Seun. Will do. For "technical reasons" (i.e., my lack of technological know how), we will get this out on Monday. Rosemary From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 3:31 PM To: Rosemary E. Fei Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>); Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>); Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>); ICANN-Adler;accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo Hello Rosemary, I think it will be helpful if you provide the redline version of this document as well. Thanks On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Rosemary E. Fei <rfei@adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs: We have made some clarifying changes to the memo we sent earlier this week; a revised version is attached. We would appreciate it if staff could post this in place of the prior version. Thank you. Rosemary and Holly Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> www.adlercolvin.com<http://www.adlercolvin.com/> _____________________________ Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email. _______________________________________________ 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/> Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453/> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! _______________________________________________ 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, Sam! Steve On Sep 26, 2015, at 3:44 PM, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> wrote:
Here is a quick redline that I pulled.
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> Date: Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 3:41 PM To: "Rosemary E. Fei" <rfei@adlercolvin.com> Cc: ICANN-Adler <ICANN@adlercolvin.com>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, "Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com)" <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo
If both the prior and current versions are available and in Word, i.e. .doc or .docx formats, we can generate the comparison (redline) version in a minute.
Steve
On Sep 26, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Rosemary E. Fei <rfei@adlercolvin.com> wrote:
Understood, Seun. Will do. For “technical reasons” (i.e., my lack of technological know how), we will get this out on Monday.
Rosemary
From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 3:31 PM To: Rosemary E. Fei Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe@sanchez.mx); Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr); Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com); ICANN-Adler;accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo
Hello Rosemary,
I think it will be helpful if you provide the redline version of this document as well.
Thanks
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Rosemary E. Fei <rfei@adlercolvin.com> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs:
We have made some clarifying changes to the memo we sent earlier this week; a revised version is attached.
We would appreciate it if staff could post this in place of the prior version.
Thank you.
Rosemary and Holly
Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com www.adlercolvin.com
_____________________________ Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
<REDLINE Memo Comparison of Board Proposal to CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal.doc>
Yes, thanks very much, Sam! Rosemary From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve@shinkuro.com] Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 3:46 PM To: Samantha Eisner Cc: Stephen D. Crocker; Rosemary E. Fei; ICANN-Adler; Thomas Rickert; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com) Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo Thanks, Sam! Steve On Sep 26, 2015, at 3:44 PM, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>> wrote: Here is a quick redline that I pulled. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com<mailto:steve@shinkuro.com>> Date: Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 3:41 PM To: "Rosemary E. Fei" <rfei@adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>> Cc: ICANN-Adler <ICANN@adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, "Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>)" <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo If both the prior and current versions are available and in Word, i.e. .doc or .docx formats, we can generate the comparison (redline) version in a minute. Steve On Sep 26, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Rosemary E. Fei <rfei@adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>> wrote: Understood, Seun. Will do. For "technical reasons" (i.e., my lack of technological know how), we will get this out on Monday. Rosemary From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 3:31 PM To: Rosemary E. Fei Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>); Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>); Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>); ICANN-Adler;accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo Hello Rosemary, I think it will be helpful if you provide the redline version of this document as well. Thanks On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Rosemary E. Fei <rfei@adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs: We have made some clarifying changes to the memo we sent earlier this week; a revised version is attached. We would appreciate it if staff could post this in place of the prior version. Thank you. Rosemary and Holly Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> www.adlercolvin.com<http://www.adlercolvin.com/> _____________________________ Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email. _______________________________________________ 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/> Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453/> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! _______________________________________________ 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 <REDLINE Memo Comparison of Board Proposal to CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal.doc>
Thanks to Rosemary and Holly for this revised document. I would very much welcome a comparison of Sole Member, Sole Designator and Board proposal, as described in the paragraph excerpted below: “As discussed at length leading up to the CCWG’s decision to propose the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model, a Sole Designator Model would provide an alternative that provides fairly robust community powers and enforceability though less than the Sole Member Model. We are preparing at the request of the CCWG a PowerPoint comparison of the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model, the Sole Designator Model and the Board Proposal. Our initial assessment is that the Board Proposal -- due to lack of the legal rights that can attach to a member and a designator -- is closest to the current status quo and would deliver the least robust and enforceable community powers of the three models.” If the Board views membership as unacceptable, and the community is willing and able to accept that membership is off the table, then the Sole Designator model is likely to be the best, most mutually acceptable compromise solution. If we can evaluate Sole Designator against our goals and on the spectrum of choices, it will help to inform our decision-making about next steps, the path forward, and the final proposal. I look forward to seeing the assessment. Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosemary E. Fei Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 6:27 PM To: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe@sanchez.mx); Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr) Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com); ccwg-accountability5@icann.org; ICANN-Adler; Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community@icann.org) Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo Dear Co-Chairs: We have made some clarifying changes to the memo we sent earlier this week; a revised version is attached. We would appreciate it if staff could post this in place of the prior version. Thank you. Rosemary and Holly Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> www.adlercolvin.com<http://www.adlercolvin.com> _____________________________ Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.
By all means do the study, information is always welcomed. But I think we are a ways from agreement on the two “ifs” (“If the Board views membership as unacceptable, and [if] the community is willing and able to accept that membership is off the table”). The Designator model was likewise found wanting by the community. And I am not convinced that it will be easier to change the minds of the collective community, than 6 minds on the board. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 2:21 PM To: Rosemary E. Fei; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe@sanchez.mx); Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr) Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com); ccwg-accountability5@icann.org; ICANN-Adler; Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community@icann.org) Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo Thanks to Rosemary and Holly for this revised document. I would very much welcome a comparison of Sole Member, Sole Designator and Board proposal, as described in the paragraph excerpted below: “As discussed at length leading up to the CCWG’s decision to propose the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model, a Sole Designator Model would provide an alternative that provides fairly robust community powers and enforceability though less than the Sole Member Model. We are preparing at the request of the CCWG a PowerPoint comparison of the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model, the Sole Designator Model and the Board Proposal. Our initial assessment is that the Board Proposal -- due to lack of the legal rights that can attach to a member and a designator -- is closest to the current status quo and would deliver the least robust and enforceable community powers of the three models.” If the Board views membership as unacceptable, and the community is willing and able to accept that membership is off the table, then the Sole Designator model is likely to be the best, most mutually acceptable compromise solution. If we can evaluate Sole Designator against our goals and on the spectrum of choices, it will help to inform our decision-making about next steps, the path forward, and the final proposal. I look forward to seeing the assessment. Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosemary E. Fei Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 6:27 PM To: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>); Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>) Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>); ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>; ICANN-Adler; Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>) Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo Dear Co-Chairs: We have made some clarifying changes to the memo we sent earlier this week; a revised version is attached. We would appreciate it if staff could post this in place of the prior version. Thank you. Rosemary and Holly Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> www.adlercolvin.com<http://www.adlercolvin.com> _____________________________ Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.
Ultimately we need to look at specific issues and concerns within each model, and specific strengths and weaknesses of each model. (SWOT analysis, maybe?) These can't be viewed as three sealed boxes. Lining up with flags saying "Single Member," "Single Designator" or "MEM" and engaging in some sort of jousting tournament will get us nowhere. There are a lot of commonalities and smaller gaps, as well as a few yawning chasms between the three models. Clarifying the strengths, weaknesses and goals of each model, and trying to remove concerns and differences, will get us down to the nubby issues. Greg On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier@intel.com
wrote:
By all means do the study, information is always welcomed.
But I think we are a ways from agreement on the two “ifs” (“*If the Board views membership as unacceptable, and [if] the community is willing and able to accept that membership is off the table*”).
The Designator model was likewise found wanting by the community.
And I am not convinced that it will be easier to change the minds of the collective community, than 6 minds on the board.
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Drazek, Keith *Sent:* Monday, September 28, 2015 2:21 PM *To:* Rosemary E. Fei; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe@sanchez.mx); Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr) *Cc:* Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com); ccwg-accountability5@icann.org; ICANN-Adler; Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community@icann.org) *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo
Thanks to Rosemary and Holly for this revised document.
I would very much welcome a comparison of Sole Member, Sole Designator and Board proposal, as described in the paragraph excerpted below:
“As discussed at length leading up to the CCWG’s decision to propose the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model, a Sole Designator Model would provide an alternative that provides fairly robust community powers and enforceability though less than the Sole Member Model. We are preparing at the request of the CCWG a PowerPoint comparison of the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model, the Sole Designator Model and the Board Proposal. Our initial assessment is that the Board Proposal -- due to lack of the legal rights that can attach to a member and a designator -- is closest to the current status quo and would deliver the least robust and enforceable community powers of the three models.”
If the Board views membership as unacceptable, and the community is willing and able to accept that membership is off the table, then the Sole Designator model is likely to be the best, most mutually acceptable compromise solution. If we can evaluate Sole Designator against our goals and on the spectrum of choices, it will help to inform our decision-making about next steps, the path forward, and the final proposal.
I look forward to seeing the assessment.
Regards,
Keith
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Rosemary E. Fei *Sent:* Saturday, September 26, 2015 6:27 PM *To:* León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe@sanchez.mx); Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr) *Cc:* Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com); ccwg-accountability5@icann.org; ICANN-Adler; Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community@icann.org) *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo
Dear Co-Chairs:
We have made some clarifying changes to the memo we sent earlier this week; a revised version is attached.
We would appreciate it if staff could post this in place of the prior version.
Thank you.
Rosemary and Holly
Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com www.adlercolvin.com
_____________________________
Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello, The last time I checked the PC presented member model so I don't think it's accurate to imply that the community does not want other models, unless you are seeing the "individual" you as the entire community. Again, the model is not as important as agreeing on the accountability engagement goals to be achieved. The more we maintain rigidness on model, the more were are more likely to complicate and loose focus on the goals. This exercise is supposed to improve mechanisms that helps get more articulated view of the community, allow board decide on such views, and provide opportunity for redress. I expect making that happen with minimal change in the organisation's chemistry/structure should indeed be one of the goals of this WG. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 28 Sep 2015 20:07, "Chartier, Mike S" <mike.s.chartier@intel.com> wrote:
By all means do the study, information is always welcomed.
But I think we are a ways from agreement on the two “ifs” (“*If the Board views membership as unacceptable, and [if] the community is willing and able to accept that membership is off the table*”).
The Designator model was likewise found wanting by the community.
And I am not convinced that it will be easier to change the minds of the collective community, than 6 minds on the board.
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Drazek, Keith *Sent:* Monday, September 28, 2015 2:21 PM *To:* Rosemary E. Fei; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe@sanchez.mx); Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr) *Cc:* Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com); ccwg-accountability5@icann.org; ICANN-Adler; Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community@icann.org) *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo
Thanks to Rosemary and Holly for this revised document.
I would very much welcome a comparison of Sole Member, Sole Designator and Board proposal, as described in the paragraph excerpted below:
“As discussed at length leading up to the CCWG’s decision to propose the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model, a Sole Designator Model would provide an alternative that provides fairly robust community powers and enforceability though less than the Sole Member Model. We are preparing at the request of the CCWG a PowerPoint comparison of the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model, the Sole Designator Model and the Board Proposal. Our initial assessment is that the Board Proposal -- due to lack of the legal rights that can attach to a member and a designator -- is closest to the current status quo and would deliver the least robust and enforceable community powers of the three models.”
If the Board views membership as unacceptable, and the community is willing and able to accept that membership is off the table, then the Sole Designator model is likely to be the best, most mutually acceptable compromise solution. If we can evaluate Sole Designator against our goals and on the spectrum of choices, it will help to inform our decision-making about next steps, the path forward, and the final proposal.
I look forward to seeing the assessment.
Regards,
Keith
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Rosemary E. Fei *Sent:* Saturday, September 26, 2015 6:27 PM *To:* León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe@sanchez.mx); Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr) *Cc:* Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com); ccwg-accountability5@icann.org; ICANN-Adler; Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community@icann.org) *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo
Dear Co-Chairs:
We have made some clarifying changes to the memo we sent earlier this week; a revised version is attached.
We would appreciate it if staff could post this in place of the prior version.
Thank you.
Rosemary and Holly
Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com www.adlercolvin.com
_____________________________
Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 Keith! On Sep 28, 2015 12:22 PM, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks to Rosemary and Holly for this revised document.
I would very much welcome a comparison of Sole Member, Sole Designator and Board proposal, as described in the paragraph excerpted below:
“As discussed at length leading up to the CCWG’s decision to propose the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model, a Sole Designator Model would provide an alternative that provides fairly robust community powers and enforceability though less than the Sole Member Model. We are preparing at the request of the CCWG a PowerPoint comparison of the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model, the Sole Designator Model and the Board Proposal. Our initial assessment is that the Board Proposal -- due to lack of the legal rights that can attach to a member and a designator -- is closest to the current status quo and would deliver the least robust and enforceable community powers of the three models.”
If the Board views membership as unacceptable, and the community is willing and able to accept that membership is off the table, then the Sole Designator model is likely to be the best, most mutually acceptable compromise solution. If we can evaluate Sole Designator against our goals and on the spectrum of choices, it will help to inform our decision-making about next steps, the path forward, and the final proposal.
I look forward to seeing the assessment.
Regards,
Keith
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rosemary E. Fei *Sent:* Saturday, September 26, 2015 6:27 PM *To:* León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe@sanchez.mx); Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr) *Cc:* Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com); ccwg-accountability5@icann.org; ICANN-Adler; Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community@icann.org) *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo
Dear Co-Chairs:
We have made some clarifying changes to the memo we sent earlier this week; a revised version is attached.
We would appreciate it if staff could post this in place of the prior version.
Thank you.
Rosemary and Holly
Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com www.adlercolvin.com
_____________________________
Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I support Keith's request and believe this analysis could help us to get to the heart of the matter more quickly, rather than dancing around the edges. Let's ascertain in more precise detail just what can be achieved with these specific options, and then we weigh that against the requirements of NTIA, CWG, and our understanding of the community's wishes, as expressed through its participation in this process. Now that we've had our LA consultations, we can move forward into completing this phase of analysis, considering all comments received and views expressed. As we haven't yet completed that, let's not lose heart in this process and our ability to rise to the occasion and reach new points of consensus that can be built upon. Best, Robin On Sep 28, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
Thanks to Rosemary and Holly for this revised document.
I would very much welcome a comparison of Sole Member, Sole Designator and Board proposal, as described in the paragraph excerpted below:
“As discussed at length leading up to the CCWG’s decision to propose the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model, a Sole Designator Model would provide an alternative that provides fairly robust community powers and enforceability though less than the Sole Member Model. We are preparing at the request of the CCWG a PowerPoint comparison of the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model, the Sole Designator Model and the Board Proposal. Our initial assessment is that the Board Proposal -- due to lack of the legal rights that can attach to a member and a designator -- is closest to the current status quo and would deliver the least robust and enforceable community powers of the three models.”
If the Board views membership as unacceptable, and the community is willing and able to accept that membership is off the table, then the Sole Designator model is likely to be the best, most mutually acceptable compromise solution. If we can evaluate Sole Designator against our goals and on the spectrum of choices, it will help to inform our decision-making about next steps, the path forward, and the final proposal.
I look forward to seeing the assessment.
Regards, Keith
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosemary E. Fei Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 6:27 PM To: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe@sanchez.mx); Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr) Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com); ccwg-accountability5@icann.org; ICANN-Adler; Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community@icann.org) Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo
Dear Co-Chairs:
We have made some clarifying changes to the memo we sent earlier this week; a revised version is attached.
We would appreciate it if staff could post this in place of the prior version.
Thank you.
Rosemary and Holly
Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com www.adlercolvin.com
_____________________________ Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1. It seems axiomatic that important decisions are to be made that should be fully informed by such an analytical comparison. 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 Sent from my iPad On Sep 28, 2015, at 4:51 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I support Keith's request and believe this analysis could help us to get to the heart of the matter more quickly, rather than dancing around the edges. Let's ascertain in more precise detail just what can be achieved with these specific options, and then we weigh that against the requirements of NTIA, CWG, and our understanding of the community's wishes, as expressed through its participation in this process. Now that we've had our LA consultations, we can move forward into completing this phase of analysis, considering all comments received and views expressed. As we haven't yet completed that, let's not lose heart in this process and our ability to rise to the occasion and reach new points of consensus that can be built upon. Best, Robin On Sep 28, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote: Thanks to Rosemary and Holly for this revised document. I would very much welcome a comparison of Sole Member, Sole Designator and Board proposal, as described in the paragraph excerpted below: “As discussed at length leading up to the CCWG’s decision to propose the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model, a Sole Designator Model would provide an alternative that provides fairly robust community powers and enforceability though less than the Sole Member Model. We are preparing at the request of the CCWG a PowerPoint comparison of the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model, the Sole Designator Model and the Board Proposal. Our initial assessment is that the Board Proposal -- due to lack of the legal rights that can attach to a member and a designator -- is closest to the current status quo and would deliver the least robust and enforceable community powers of the three models.” If the Board views membership as unacceptable, and the community is willing and able to accept that membership is off the table, then the Sole Designator model is likely to be the best, most mutually acceptable compromise solution. If we can evaluate Sole Designator against our goals and on the spectrum of choices, it will help to inform our decision-making about next steps, the path forward, and the final proposal. I look forward to seeing the assessment. Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosemary E. Fei Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 6:27 PM To: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>); Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>) Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>); ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>; ICANN-Adler; Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>) Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo Dear Co-Chairs: We have made some clarifying changes to the memo we sent earlier this week; a revised version is attached. We would appreciate it if staff could post this in place of the prior version. Thank you. Rosemary and Holly Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei@adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> www.adlercolvin.com<http://www.adlercolvin.com> _____________________________ Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5
participants (10)
-
Carlos Raul -
Chartier, Mike S -
Drazek, Keith -
Greg Shatan -
Phil Corwin -
Robin Gross -
Rosemary E. Fei -
Samantha Eisner -
Seun Ojedeji -
Steve Crocker