Dear Co-Chairs, Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]? Thank you, Robin
How so, when every point has full consensus? On 12/11/15 01:35, Robin Gross wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]?
Thank you, Robin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co-Chairs, I have still not received a response to this request. What is the process for submitting minority statements? Please advise. Thanks, Robin
On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]?
Thank you, Robin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Robin, as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received. Best, Thomas --- rickert.net
Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have still not received a response to this request. What is the process for submitting minority statements? Please advise.
Thanks, Robin
On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]?
Thank you, Robin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thanks, Thomas. See below. Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG) The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an “advisory” role to a “decision making” role over fundamental matters at ICANN, including its governance. Consequently the proposal marginalizes the role of Supporting Organizations (SO’s) compared to today’s ICANN governance structure. The degree of governmental empowerment over ICANN resulting from the proposal’s community mechanism is dangerous to the success of the proposal’s political acceptance as well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet. The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing power balance between SO’s and AC’s as determined by relative board appointments. Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates the AC’s relative to the SO’s compared with today’s balance on ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within the SO’s mandate. The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in ICANN’s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing SO’s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report. The community mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the various SO’s and AC’s, and the dangers inherent in changing those roles with a “one size fits all” approach to critical decision making. Additionally, I object to the proposed departure from ICANN’s typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for CCWG-Accountability. The 3rd report’s public comment only allows for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public comment period for a report of this significance and with so many important changes since previous drafts. Robin Gross
On Nov 29, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Dear Robin, as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received.
Best, Thomas
--- rickert.net <http://rickert.net/>
Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have still not received a response to this request. What is the process for submitting minority statements? Please advise.
Thanks, Robin
On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]?
Thank you, Robin _______________________________________________ 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>
FWIW, Robin’s dissent is fully in line with the official comments submitted by the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group during the last public comment period. --MM From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 6:41 PM To: Thomas Rickert Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report Thanks, Thomas. See below. Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG) The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an “advisory” role to a “decision making” role over fundamental matters at ICANN, including its governance. Consequently the proposal marginalizes the role of Supporting Organizations (SO’s) compared to today’s ICANN governance structure. The degree of governmental empowerment over ICANN resulting from the proposal’s community mechanism is dangerous to the success of the proposal’s political acceptance as well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet. The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing power balance between SO’s and AC’s as determined by relative board appointments. Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates the AC’s relative to the SO’s compared with today’s balance on ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within the SO’s mandate. The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in ICANN’s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing SO’s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report. The community mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the various SO’s and AC’s, and the dangers inherent in changing those roles with a “one size fits all” approach to critical decision making. Additionally, I object to the proposed departure from ICANN’s typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for CCWG-Accountability. The 3rd report’s public comment only allows for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public comment period for a report of this significance and with so many important changes since previous drafts. Robin Gross On Nov 29, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote: Dear Robin, as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received. Best, Thomas --- rickert.net<http://rickert.net/> Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>: Dear Co-Chairs, I have still not received a response to this request. What is the process for submitting minority statements? Please advise. Thanks, Robin On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs, Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]? Thank you, Robin _______________________________________________ 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
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
FWIW, Robin’s dissent is fully in line with the official comments submitted by the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group during the last public comment period.
SO: Thats fine, especially if the NCSG still believes that the concerns raised during the second public comment has still not been addressed. Therefore, I would expect some of the wordings of Robin's mail to be written with a "collective" sense to it (e.g "..Additionally, *I* object to...", would have read "...Additionally, *We* object to...") or there should be a line/footer indicating that the "individual" view has been endorsed by the NCSG or even by the GNSO (if applicable as NCSG is not solely a chartering organization per-see[1]) My goal is not to determine whether a minority statement is right or wrong, my main point is that we ensure individual opinions are clearly differentiated from Chartering organization opinions as the document is expected to communicate to those who may not have been following this process. This is somewhat our last shot and it should communicate intent as much as possible. Regards 1. https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter
--MM
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Robin Gross *Sent:* Sunday, November 29, 2015 6:41 PM *To:* Thomas Rickert *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report
Thanks, Thomas. See below.
*Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG)*
The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an “advisory” role to a “decision making” role over fundamental matters at ICANN, including its governance. Consequently the proposal marginalizes the role of Supporting Organizations (SO’s) compared to today’s ICANN governance structure. The degree of governmental empowerment over ICANN resulting from the proposal’s community mechanism is dangerous to the success of the proposal’s political acceptance as well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet.
The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing power balance between SO’s and AC’s as determined by relative board appointments. Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates the AC’s relative to the SO’s compared with today’s balance on ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within the SO’s mandate. The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in ICANN’s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing SO’s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report. The community mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the various SO’s and AC’s, and the dangers inherent in changing those roles with a “one size fits all” approach to critical decision making.
Additionally, I object to the proposed departure from ICANN’s typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for CCWG-Accountability. The 3rd report’s public comment only allows for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public comment period for a report of this significance and with so many important changes since previous drafts.
Robin Gross
On Nov 29, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Dear Robin,
as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received.
Best,
Thomas
---
rickert.net
Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have still not received a response to this request. What is the process for submitting minority statements? Please advise.
Thanks, Robin
On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]?
Thank you,
Robin
_______________________________________________
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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *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!
Seun There is no practical way anyone in the Chartering Organisations can have followed even a scintilla of this insane process. We (the chartering organisations) appoint Members. That's representative democracy. You and I are mere participants, are we not, and I think we owe it to the process (such as remains of it) not to try and tell the Members how to do the job they were appointed to do. I shall, at least, refrain, from that (much as I would like to). On 30/11/15 16:23, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote:
FWIW, Robin’s dissent is fully in line with the official comments submitted by the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group during the last public comment period.
SO: Thats fine, especially if the NCSG still believes that the concerns raised during the second public comment has still not been addressed. Therefore, I would expect some of the wordings of Robin's mail to be written with a "collective" sense to it (e.g "..Additionally, *I* object to...", would have read "...Additionally, *We* object to...") or there should be a line/footer indicating that the "individual" view has been endorsed by the NCSG or even by the GNSO (if applicable as NCSG is not solely a chartering organization per-see[1])
My goal is not to determine whether a minority statement is right or wrong, my main point is that we ensure individual opinions are clearly differentiated from Chartering organization opinions as the document is expected to communicate to those who may not have been following this process. This is somewhat our last shot and it should communicate intent as much as possible.
Regards 1. https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter
____
--MM____
__ __
*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 *Robin Gross *Sent:* Sunday, November 29, 2015 6:41 PM *To:* Thomas Rickert *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report____
__ __
Thanks, Thomas. See below.____
__ __
*Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG)*____
__ __
The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an “advisory” role to a “decision making” role over fundamental matters at ICANN, including its governance. Consequently the proposal marginalizes the role of Supporting Organizations (SO’s) compared to today’s ICANN governance structure. The degree of governmental empowerment over ICANN resulting from the proposal’s community mechanism is dangerous to the success of the proposal’s political acceptance as well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet.____
__ __
The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing power balance between SO’s and AC’s as determined by relative board appointments. Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates the AC’s relative to the SO’s compared with today’s balance on ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within the SO’s mandate. The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in ICANN’s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing SO’s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report. The community mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the various SO’s and AC’s, and the dangers inherent in changing those roles with a “one size fits all” approach to critical decision making. ____
__ __
Additionally, I object to the proposed departure from ICANN’s typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for CCWG-Accountability. The 3rd report’s public comment only allows for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public comment period for a report of this significance and with so many important changes since previous drafts.____
__ __
Robin Gross____
__ __
On Nov 29, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote:____
__ __
Dear Robin,____
as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received.____
__ __
Best,____
Thomas ____
__ __
---____
rickert.net <http://rickert.net/>____
__ __
Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>:____
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have still not received a response to this request. What is the process for submitting minority statements? Please advise.
Thanks, Robin
____
On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote:____
__ __
Dear Co-Chairs,____
__ __
Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]?____
__ __
Thank you,____
Robin____
___________________________________________________
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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
/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!
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello, With respect; one of the problem in this process is that there has been quite a lot of unnecessary mis-interpretation, attacks and some level of attempts to intimidate. Some of us have continued to participate irrespective of this (perhaps because we are more tolerating) but i can assure you that a number of people may have been affected/discouraged by such acts. All that I have suggested is that Minority statements be attributed appropriately, so those who have not been following can put things in perspective. I have no idea of the difficulty in doing that; since a member is representing chartering organization and intends to write on-behalf, then he/she should word the statement as such. It just seem like a logical thing to do. However, as you have rightly stated, I am just a participant and my suggestion can of-course be discarded. All from me on this subject. Regards On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Seun
There is no practical way anyone in the Chartering Organisations can have followed even a scintilla of this insane process.
We (the chartering organisations) appoint Members. That's representative democracy.
You and I are mere participants, are we not, and I think we owe it to the process (such as remains of it) not to try and tell the Members how to do the job they were appointed to do.
I shall, at least, refrain, from that (much as I would like to).
On 30/11/15 16:23, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote:
FWIW, Robin’s dissent is fully in line with the official comments submitted by the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group during the last public comment period.
SO: Thats fine, especially if the NCSG still believes that the concerns raised during the second public comment has still not been addressed. Therefore, I would expect some of the wordings of Robin's mail to be written with a "collective" sense to it (e.g "..Additionally, *I* object to...", would have read "...Additionally, *We* object to...") or there should be a line/footer indicating that the "individual" view has been endorsed by the NCSG or even by the GNSO (if applicable as NCSG is not solely a chartering organization per-see[1])
My goal is not to determine whether a minority statement is right or wrong, my main point is that we ensure individual opinions are clearly differentiated from Chartering organization opinions as the document is expected to communicate to those who may not have been following this process. This is somewhat our last shot and it should communicate intent as much as possible.
Regards 1. https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter
____
--MM____
__ __
*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 *Robin Gross *Sent:* Sunday, November 29, 2015 6:41 PM *To:* Thomas Rickert *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report____
__ __
Thanks, Thomas. See below.____
__ __
*Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG)*____
__ __
The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an “advisory” role to a “decision making” role over fundamental matters at ICANN, including its governance. Consequently the proposal marginalizes the role of Supporting Organizations (SO’s) compared to today’s ICANN governance structure. The degree of governmental empowerment over ICANN resulting from the proposal’s community mechanism is dangerous to the success of the proposal’s political acceptance as well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet.____
__ __
The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing power balance between SO’s and AC’s as determined by relative board appointments. Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates the AC’s relative to the SO’s compared with today’s balance on ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within the SO’s mandate. The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in ICANN’s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing SO’s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report. The community mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the various SO’s and AC’s, and the dangers inherent in changing those roles with a “one size fits all” approach to critical decision making. ____
__ __
Additionally, I object to the proposed departure from ICANN’s typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for CCWG-Accountability. The 3rd report’s public comment only allows for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public comment period for a report of this significance and with so many important changes since previous drafts.____
__ __
Robin Gross____
__ __
On Nov 29, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote:____
__ __
Dear Robin,____
as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received.____
__ __
Best,____
Thomas ____
__ __
---____
rickert.net <http://rickert.net/>____
__ __
Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>:____
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have still not received a response to this request. What is the process for submitting minority statements? Please advise.
Thanks, Robin
____
On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote:____
__ __
Dear Co-Chairs,____
__ __
Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]?____
__ __
Thank you,____
Robin____
___________________________________________________
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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
/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!
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *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!
I have edited the dissenting opinion to clarify that these points have been raised in NCSG’s previous public comment submissions and taken out any reference to “I” in the text. (see below). Additionally, I noticed that the version of Appendix A <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Third+Draft+Report?preview...> to our report on the website states there are no minority statements or objections. It has been a matter of record for several weeks that a dissenting opinion will be filed on this issue, so I’m concerned by the inaccuracy of the report's statement on the website and its omission of the dissenting opinion. Let’s get this fixed. Thanks, Robin Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG) The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an “advisory” role to a “decision making” role over fundamental matters at ICANN, including its governance. Consequently the proposal marginalizes the role of Supporting Organizations (SO’s) compared to today’s ICANN governance structure. The degree of governmental empowerment over ICANN resulting from the proposal’s community mechanism is dangerous to the success of the proposal’s political acceptance as well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet. The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing power balance between SO’s and AC’s as determined by relative board appointments. Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates the AC’s relative to the SO’s compared with today’s balance on ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within the SO’s mandate. The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in ICANN’s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing SO’s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report. The community mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the various SO’s and AC’s, and the dangers inherent in changing those roles with a “one size fits all” approach to critical decision making. These points were raised in NCSG’s Public Comment submission of September 12, 2015: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00053.... Additionally, NCSG objects to the proposed departure from ICANN’s typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for CCWG-Accountability. The 3rd report’s public comment only allows for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public comment period for a report of this significance and with so many important changes since previous drafts.
On Nov 30, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: FWIW, Robin’s dissent is fully in line with the official comments submitted by the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group during the last public comment period.
SO: Thats fine, especially if the NCSG still believes that the concerns raised during the second public comment has still not been addressed. Therefore, I would expect some of the wordings of Robin's mail to be written with a "collective" sense to it (e.g "..Additionally, I object to...", would have read "...Additionally, We object to...") or there should be a line/footer indicating that the "individual" view has been endorsed by the NCSG or even by the GNSO (if applicable as NCSG is not solely a chartering organization per-see[1])
My goal is not to determine whether a minority statement is right or wrong, my main point is that we ensure individual opinions are clearly differentiated from Chartering organization opinions as the document is expected to communicate to those who may not have been following this process. This is somewhat our last shot and it should communicate intent as much as possible.
Regards 1. https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter>
--MM
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 Robin Gross Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 6:41 PM To: Thomas Rickert Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report
Thanks, Thomas. See below.
Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG)
The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an “advisory” role to a “decision making” role over fundamental matters at ICANN, including its governance. Consequently the proposal marginalizes the role of Supporting Organizations (SO’s) compared to today’s ICANN governance structure. The degree of governmental empowerment over ICANN resulting from the proposal’s community mechanism is dangerous to the success of the proposal’s political acceptance as well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet.
The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing power balance between SO’s and AC’s as determined by relative board appointments. Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates the AC’s relative to the SO’s compared with today’s balance on ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within the SO’s mandate. The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in ICANN’s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing SO’s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report. The community mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the various SO’s and AC’s, and the dangers inherent in changing those roles with a “one size fits all” approach to critical decision making.
Additionally, I object to the proposed departure from ICANN’s typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for CCWG-Accountability. The 3rd report’s public comment only allows for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public comment period for a report of this significance and with so many important changes since previous drafts.
Robin Gross
On Nov 29, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote:
Dear Robin,
as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received.
Best,
Thomas
---
rickert.net <http://rickert.net/>
Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have still not received a response to this request. What is the process for submitting minority statements? Please advise.
Thanks, Robin
On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]?
Thank you,
Robin
_______________________________________________
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>
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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!
I support Robin Gross' points below. My opinion is coming too. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 30 Nov 2015, at 19:34, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I have edited the dissenting opinion to clarify that these points have been raised in NCSG’s previous public comment submissions and taken out any reference to “I” in the text. (see below).
Additionally, I noticed that the version of Appendix A to our report on the website states there are no minority statements or objections. It has been a matter of record for several weeks that a dissenting opinion will be filed on this issue, so I’m concerned by the inaccuracy of the report's statement on the website and its omission of the dissenting opinion. Let’s get this fixed.
Thanks, Robin Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG)
The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an “advisory” role to a “decision making” role over fundamental matters at ICANN, including its governance. Consequently the proposal marginalizes the role of Supporting Organizations (SO’s) compared to today’s ICANN governance structure. The degree of governmental empowerment over ICANN resulting from the proposal’s community mechanism is dangerous to the success of the proposal’s political acceptance as well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet.
The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing power balance between SO’s and AC’s as determined by relative board appointments. Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates the AC’s relative to the SO’s compared with today’s balance on ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within the SO’s mandate. The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in ICANN’s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing SO’s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report. The community mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the various SO’s and AC’s, and the dangers inherent in changing those roles with a “one size fits all” approach to critical decision making. These points were raised in NCSG’s Public Comment submission of September 12, 2015: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00053....
Additionally, NCSG objects to the proposed departure from ICANN’s typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for CCWG-Accountability. The 3rd report’s public comment only allows for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public comment period for a report of this significance and with so many important changes since previous drafts.
On Nov 30, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote: FWIW, Robin’s dissent is fully in line with the official comments submitted by the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group during the last public comment period.
SO: Thats fine, especially if the NCSG still believes that the concerns raised during the second public comment has still not been addressed. Therefore, I would expect some of the wordings of Robin's mail to be written with a "collective" sense to it (e.g "..Additionally, I object to...", would have read "...Additionally, We object to...") or there should be a line/footer indicating that the "individual" view has been endorsed by the NCSG or even by the GNSO (if applicable as NCSG is not solely a chartering organization per-see[1])
My goal is not to determine whether a minority statement is right or wrong, my main point is that we ensure individual opinions are clearly differentiated from Chartering organization opinions as the document is expected to communicate to those who may not have been following this process. This is somewhat our last shot and it should communicate intent as much as possible.
Regards 1. https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter
--MM
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 6:41 PM To: Thomas Rickert Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report
Thanks, Thomas. See below.
Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG)
The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an “advisory” role to a “decision making” role over fundamental matters at ICANN, including its governance. Consequently the proposal marginalizes the role of Supporting Organizations (SO’s) compared to today’s ICANN governance structure. The degree of governmental empowerment over ICANN resulting from the proposal’s community mechanism is dangerous to the success of the proposal’s political acceptance as well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet.
The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing power balance between SO’s and AC’s as determined by relative board appointments. Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates the AC’s relative to the SO’s compared with today’s balance on ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within the SO’s mandate. The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in ICANN’s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing SO’s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report. The community mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the various SO’s and AC’s, and the dangers inherent in changing those roles with a “one size fits all” approach to critical decision making.
Additionally, I object to the proposed departure from ICANN’s typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for CCWG-Accountability. The 3rd report’s public comment only allows for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public comment period for a report of this significance and with so many important changes since previous drafts.
Robin Gross
On Nov 29, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Dear Robin,
as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received.
Best,
Thomas
---
rickert.net
Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have still not received a response to this request. What is the process for submitting minority statements? Please advise.
Thanks, Robin
On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]?
Thank you,
Robin
_______________________________________________
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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
Hello, I believe this particular report is quite critical and minority statement should be treated with adequate clarity and care. It should be clear if minority statements are written on behalf of the originating chartering organisation (i.e whether the CO has been consulted before such submission is made). The charter was not clear about this but I believe this should be the ideal thing to do at this stage. If member are the ones allowed to write minority reports (although it's not explicitly stated in the charter) then such exercise should involve coordination with the originating chartering organisation. Or maybe a declaimer be added in minority annexes that the views are those of the author and not of the Chartering organisation. There may also be possibility that some minority statements could be resolved or perhaps further discussed to provide further clarity that convinces the author not to proceed further, this would imply having them come in early enough before finalising the report. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 29 Nov 2015 22:30, "Thomas Rickert" <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Dear Robin, as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received.
Best, Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have still not received a response to this request. What is the process for submitting minority statements? Please advise.
Thanks, Robin
On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]?
Thank you,
Robin
_______________________________________________
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
So now a participant, from ALAC, which changes his mind for him as the wind blows, wants to change the charter after the fact. The charter could not be clearer on this. I support Robin Gross's objection, endorse her minority opinion, object myself and shall forward a minority opinion in due course. And for the record I did not, do not and will not consult with the ccNSO on my position. I don't have to. And, for the record, I did inform the chair of ccNSO Council earlier, in terms of the charter, about being marginalized. The substance of which seeming to be getting traction in the US Appeals Court case. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 30 Nov 2015, at 06:51, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I believe this particular report is quite critical and minority statement should be treated with adequate clarity and care. It should be clear if minority statements are written on behalf of the originating chartering organisation (i.e whether the CO has been consulted before such submission is made). The charter was not clear about this but I believe this should be the ideal thing to do at this stage. If member are the ones allowed to write minority reports (although it's not explicitly stated in the charter) then such exercise should involve coordination with the originating chartering organisation. Or maybe a declaimer be added in minority annexes that the views are those of the author and not of the Chartering organisation.
There may also be possibility that some minority statements could be resolved or perhaps further discussed to provide further clarity that convinces the author not to proceed further, this would imply having them come in early enough before finalising the report.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 29 Nov 2015 22:30, "Thomas Rickert" <thomas@rickert.net> wrote: Dear Robin, as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received.
Best, Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have still not received a response to this request. What is the process for submitting minority statements? Please advise.
Thanks, Robin
On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]?
Thank you, Robin _______________________________________________ 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
So far as I can see the Charter indicates that members should solicit the views of the organisations that appointed them: "Membership in the CCWG-‐Accountability, and in sub-‐working groups should these be created, is open to members appointed by the chartering organizations. …….Each of the chartering organizations shall appoint a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5 members to the working group in accordance with their own rules and procedures. Best efforts should be made to ensure that individual members: • Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable subject matter (see for example https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-‐accountability-‐faqs-‐2014-‐08-‐22-‐en#12 for areas identified for expertise); • Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG-‐Accountability on an ongoing and long-‐ term basis; and • Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them. [emphasis added] ……………………… In addition, the CCWG-‐Accountability will be open to any interested person as a participant. Participants may be from a chartering organization, from a stakeholder group not represented in the CCWG-‐Accountability, or may be self-‐appointed. Participants will be able to actively participate in and attend all CCWG-‐Accountability meetings, work groups and sub-‐work groups. However, should there be a need for a consensus call or decision, such consensus call or decision will be limited to CCWG-‐Accountability members appointed by the chartering organizations." [emphasis added] So a fortiori minority opinions should be from members representing a chartering organisation and I suppose any participants opinions can be expressed as their own opinion but should be distinguished from those of members. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 9:00 AM To: CCWG Accountability Cc: Lisse Eberhard Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report So now a participant, from ALAC, which changes his mind for him as the wind blows, wants to change the charter after the fact. The charter could not be clearer on this. I support Robin Gross's objection, endorse her minority opinion, object myself and shall forward a minority opinion in due course. And for the record I did not, do not and will not consult with the ccNSO on my position. I don't have to. And, for the record, I did inform the chair of ccNSO Council earlier, in terms of the charter, about being marginalized. The substance of which seeming to be getting traction in the US Appeals Court case. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On 30 Nov 2015, at 06:51, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello, I believe this particular report is quite critical and minority statement should be treated with adequate clarity and care. It should be clear if minority statements are written on behalf of the originating chartering organisation (i.e whether the CO has been consulted before such submission is made). The charter was not clear about this but I believe this should be the ideal thing to do at this stage. If member are the ones allowed to write minority reports (although it's not explicitly stated in the charter) then such exercise should involve coordination with the originating chartering organisation. Or maybe a declaimer be added in minority annexes that the views are those of the author and not of the Chartering organisation. There may also be possibility that some minority statements could be resolved or perhaps further discussed to provide further clarity that convinces the author not to proceed further, this would imply having them come in early enough before finalising the report. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 29 Nov 2015 22:30, "Thomas Rickert" <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote: Dear Robin, as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received. Best, Thomas --- rickert.net<http://rickert.net> Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>: Dear Co-Chairs, I have still not received a response to this request. What is the process for submitting minority statements? Please advise. Thanks, Robin On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs, Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]? Thank you, Robin _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Co-Chairs, I have stated right from the beginning that I say what I mean and I mean what I say. And I do what I think is right. I think we have been through this already. TWICE. But then... I seem to recall the Chair of ccNSP Council (who does read in copy) having stated when he was asked (I think by the representative of the German Internet industry's interests) whether I represent the views of the ccNSO, that the diversity of the ccNSO is reflected in the appointment of its members to the CCWG. Never mind that, where appropriate, I have INDEED solicited AND communicated the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appointed me. To no avail. Or rather to strong exceptions. Or whatever. I would not ask whether the representative of the EU's input reflects the opinion of the EU nor even the GAC, but I need to point out that the GAC representatives have been distinctly lagging, if not lacking, in communicating the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appointed them. Never mind that several, and I wish to single out the representative of Brazil here in particular, have been pushing their governments' agenda in the CCWG. With which I have absolutely no issue, per se, by the way, but I do wonder whether what is good for the goose should not also be good for the gander... And I am not even talking about the Co-Chairs. I also wish to thank the representative of the EU for creating the opportunity for me to find out the meaning of the word 'fortiori" and to find out that its use as an adjective is to be resisted. el On 2015-11-30 10:53, Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu wrote:
So far as I can see the Charter indicates that members should solicit the views of the organisations that appointed them: [...]
So a fortiori minority opinions should be from members representing a chartering organisation and I suppose any participants opinions can be expressed as their own opinion but should be distinguished from those of members.
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Dr Eberhard W Lisse *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2015 9:00 AM *To:* CCWG Accountability *Cc:* Lisse Eberhard *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report
So now a participant, from ALAC, which changes his mind for him as the wind blows, wants to change the charter after the fact.
The charter could not be clearer on this.
I support Robin Gross's objection, endorse her minority opinion, object myself and shall forward a minority opinion in due course.
And for the record I did not, do not and will not consult with the ccNSO on my position. I don't have to.
And, for the record, I did inform the chair of ccNSO Council earlier, in terms of the charter, about being marginalized.
The substance of which seeming to be getting traction in the US Appeals Court case.
el
--
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 30 Nov 2015, at 06:51, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello,
I believe this particular report is quite critical and minority statement should be treated with adequate clarity and care. It should be clear if minority statements are written on behalf of the originating chartering organisation (i.e whether the CO has been consulted before such submission is made). The charter was not clear about this but I believe this should be the ideal thing to do at this stage. If member are the ones allowed to write minority reports (although it's not explicitly stated in the charter) then such exercise should involve coordination with the originating chartering organisation. Or maybe a declaimer be added in minority annexes that the views are those of the author and not of the Chartering organisation.
There may also be possibility that some minority statements could be resolved or perhaps further discussed to provide further clarity that convinces the author not to proceed further, this would imply having them come in early enough before finalising the report.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
[...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
participants (7)
-
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Megan.Richards＠ec.europa.eu -
Mueller, Milton L -
Nigel Roberts -
Robin Gross -
Seun Ojedeji -
Thomas Rickert