Dear Colleagues, In anticipation of a discussion during our meeting tomorrow, please find attached a set of slides to suggest a way forward, for the group's consideration. Thank you for your feedbacks. Best regards, Thomas, Leon & Mathieu
I will be in transit unit tomorrow evening and doubt I will make it. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 28 Sep 2015, at 20:47, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
In anticipation of a discussion during our meeting tomorrow, please find attached a set of slides to suggest a way forward, for the group's consideration.
Thank you for your feedbacks.
Best regards, Thomas, Leon & Mathieu <To Dublin and beyond.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, By and large looks reasonable. on slide 7
co-ordination by new small group (SO/AC reps, Board, Lawyers, ) to limit risk of friction, no decision making.
While seeing this as possibly useful, I would also hope to minimize the amount of topic framing and agenda setting done by this smaller authoritative group. Which points to another issue, which is the degree to which the agendas for meetings are not subject to participant review and especially that the opening of the meeting does not give the participants the ability to amend the agenda. While I respect the difficulty of the problems the chairs must deal with, I do believe that they have been a bit too autocratic at times and that this has, perhaps, interfered with our ability to resolve issues. For example the fact that we were prevented from discussing the implications of the competing models in this last F2F meeting have left us with unexplored fundamental disagreements and questions that should have been asked. avri On 28-Sep-15 12:47, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
In anticipation of a discussion during our meeting tomorrow, please find attached a set of slides to suggest a way forward, for the group's consideration.
Thank you for your feedbacks.
Best regards, Thomas, Leon & Mathieu
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I suggest we add a first agenda item "Review of Agenda" to all meetings, and secondly that as we get back into stride, draft agendas are circulated for review and debate where possible - and a final agenda taking that into account arriving no later than 12h before the meeting (pref 24h). J On 29 September 2015 at 06:14, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
By and large looks reasonable.
on slide 7
co-ordination by new small group (SO/AC reps, Board, Lawyers, ) to limit risk of friction, no decision making.
While seeing this as possibly useful, I would also hope to minimize the amount of topic framing and agenda setting done by this smaller authoritative group.
Which points to another issue, which is the degree to which the agendas for meetings are not subject to participant review and especially that the opening of the meeting does not give the participants the ability to amend the agenda. While I respect the difficulty of the problems the chairs must deal with, I do believe that they have been a bit too autocratic at times and that this has, perhaps, interfered with our ability to resolve issues. For example the fact that we were prevented from discussing the implications of the competing models in this last F2F meeting have left us with unexplored fundamental disagreements and questions that should have been asked.
avri
On 28-Sep-15 12:47, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
In anticipation of a discussion during our meeting tomorrow, please find attached a set of slides to suggest a way forward, for the group's consideration.
Thank you for your feedbacks.
Best regards, Thomas, Leon & Mathieu
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *
Hi Avri, Jordan, and all, Happy to follow this suggestion around review of agenda. I would agree in principle with Jordan about providing agenda and documents upfront, this is clearly our target, but I'm reluctant to carve it in stone and be held accountable to it, because it is often challenging to coordinate in time. Mathieu Weill Autocrat co-chair --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
Le 28 sept. 2015 à 19:47, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> a écrit :
I suggest we add a first agenda item "Review of Agenda" to all meetings, and secondly that as we get back into stride, draft agendas are circulated for review and debate where possible - and a final agenda taking that into account arriving no later than 12h before the meeting (pref 24h).
J
On 29 September 2015 at 06:14, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote: Hi,
By and large looks reasonable.
on slide 7
co-ordination by new small group (SO/AC reps, Board, Lawyers, ) to limit risk of friction, no decision making.
While seeing this as possibly useful, I would also hope to minimize the amount of topic framing and agenda setting done by this smaller authoritative group.
Which points to another issue, which is the degree to which the agendas for meetings are not subject to participant review and especially that the opening of the meeting does not give the participants the ability to amend the agenda. While I respect the difficulty of the problems the chairs must deal with, I do believe that they have been a bit too autocratic at times and that this has, perhaps, interfered with our ability to resolve issues. For example the fact that we were prevented from discussing the implications of the competing models in this last F2F meeting have left us with unexplored fundamental disagreements and questions that should have been asked.
avri
On 28-Sep-15 12:47, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
In anticipation of a discussion during our meeting tomorrow, please find attached a set of slides to suggest a way forward, for the group's consideration.
Thank you for your feedbacks.
Best regards, Thomas, Leon & Mathieu
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
A better world through a better Internet
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Avri, thanks for your input. You will remember we discussed in preparation for LA that we wanted to avoid a battle of models. This is why we did not put that specific point on the agenda. Rather, we wanted to discuss the comments and try to remove concerns. Surely, the meeting did not go as smoothly as I am sure we all hoped. Nonetheless, I think we made good progress in some areas, particularly with the break-out sessions. Please do comment on and ask for changes to the agendas we suggest to the group. Best, Thomas
Am 28.09.2015 um 19:14 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
Hi,
By and large looks reasonable.
on slide 7
co-ordination by new small group (SO/AC reps, Board, Lawyers, ) to limit risk of friction, no decision making.
While seeing this as possibly useful, I would also hope to minimize the amount of topic framing and agenda setting done by this smaller authoritative group.
Which points to another issue, which is the degree to which the agendas for meetings are not subject to participant review and especially that the opening of the meeting does not give the participants the ability to amend the agenda. While I respect the difficulty of the problems the chairs must deal with, I do believe that they have been a bit too autocratic at times and that this has, perhaps, interfered with our ability to resolve issues. For example the fact that we were prevented from discussing the implications of the competing models in this last F2F meeting have left us with unexplored fundamental disagreements and questions that should have been asked.
avri
On 28-Sep-15 12:47, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
In anticipation of a discussion during our meeting tomorrow, please find attached a set of slides to suggest a way forward, for the group's consideration.
Thank you for your feedbacks.
Best regards, Thomas, Leon & Mathieu
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 28-Sep-15 13:52, Thomas Rickert wrote:
You will remember we discussed in preparation for LA that we wanted to avoid a battle of models
Avoiding a battle should not have meant avoiding a serious and detailed discussion. A discussion we still need to have. Also it might have been good to see to what extent that sentiment was supported by those participating in the CCWG. While I honored the chairs' instructions that we were not to discuss the models, or even mention them on the 2nd day, in reviewing our progress, I feel it was a major mistake. I agree with Jordan that agenda review, and I add rules of engagement, should be discussed at the beginning of the meeting by those participating in the meeting as we continue our way down the road to Dublin. Thomas, thank you for responding to my comment. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Hello, Please note my apology for this meeting. On a lighter note, setting a meeting just after the long marathon of LA is really asking too much on volunteer participants especially if inclusiveness/diversity in outcome of this WG is considered important. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 28 Sep 2015 17:47, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
In anticipation of a discussion during our meeting tomorrow, please find attached a set of slides to suggest a way forward, for the group's consideration.
Thank you for your feedbacks.
Best regards, Thomas, Leon & Mathieu
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On slide #3, when you write “topic”, do you mean topic from the public comments? If yes, I would suggest the title “WP Comment Allocation” instead of topic txs Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________ email: crg@isoc-cr.org Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7173 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA
On Sep 28, 2015, at 10:47 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
<To Dublin and beyond.pdf>
We can choose a less adversarial term than "battle". How about "harmonization"? Either way, I think the comparison and working through of the issues in the two models was the elephant and the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. Indeed, I think it was the 800 lb. gorilla riding an elephant around the perimeter of the room for 2 straight days.... And the gorilla is riding the elephant still. As far as agenda suggestions go, I suggest we deal with the contrasting and attempted harmonization of the models, and with getting (in explicit and concrete terms) the concerns that the Board has with the Member, and determining whether they can be resolved. Some may be a result of misunderstandings, some may be capable of dialogue (if you don't want to call it negotiation) and solution, and some (but hopefully none) may be insoluble (and even the insoluble ones can almost certainly be minimized). I expected this, and review of the comments, to be the prime subjects of the F2F. Since they weren't we now need to deal with them. Greg On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote:
On slide #3, when you write “topic”, do you mean topic from the public comments? If yes, I would suggest the title “WP Comment Allocation” instead of topic
txs
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________
email: crg@isoc-cr.org Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7173 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA
On Sep 28, 2015, at 10:47 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
<To Dublin and beyond.pdf>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Carlos, Thank you for your feedback. Yes, that is meant to include topics of public comments, as grouped according to our report key sections. best Mathieu Le 28/09/2015 20:20, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez a écrit :
On slide #3, when you write “topic”, do you mean topic from the public comments? If yes, I would suggest the title “WP Comment Allocation” instead of topic
txs
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________
email: crg@isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7173 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA
On Sep 28, 2015, at 10:47 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote:
<To Dublin and beyond.pdf>
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
Of possible please write it as such in slide #3 On Sep 29, 2015 3:45 AM, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Carlos,
Thank you for your feedback.
Yes, that is meant to include topics of public comments, as grouped according to our report key sections.
best Mathieu
Le 28/09/2015 20:20, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez a écrit :
On slide #3, when you write “topic”, do you mean topic from the public comments? If yes, I would suggest the title “WP Comment Allocation” instead of topic
txs
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________
email: crg@isoc-cr.org Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7173 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA
On Sep 28, 2015, at 10:47 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
<To Dublin and beyond.pdf>
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
Thank you Chairs - for this and for your remarkable endurance and resiliency. Agree 100% with this point from the slides: •More F2F time in Dublin might be necessary, including WP sessions. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@lrrlaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 9:47 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan to Dublin Dear Colleagues, In anticipation of a discussion during our meeting tomorrow, please find attached a set of slides to suggest a way forward, for the group's consideration. Thank you for your feedbacks. Best regards, Thomas, Leon & Mathieu ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Thanks, Mathieu, for this helpful proposal. I've got a couple questions for clarifications about some statements on the slides. 1. On slide 7, the last one, on point 2 it says "Ensure that Board briefings on CCWG are (also) provided by CCWG co-chairs". Does this mean those briefings will be provided to CCWG members via the co-chairs? Or was the "by" meant to be a "to" in that statement (or something else)? It wasn't quite clear to me. 2. Also on slide 7, point 4 on the substantive work of the sub-teams (sub-part 2) "coordination by new small group (SO/AC reps, Board, Lawyers) to limit friction, no decision-making". Presumably this means the SO/AC reps appointed to CCWG. But which "board" members and which "lawyers" are proposed to coordinate the sub-teams in this new small group? Thanks much! Best, Robin On Sep 28, 2015, at 9:47 AM, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
In anticipation of a discussion during our meeting tomorrow, please find attached a set of slides to suggest a way forward, for the group's consideration.
Thank you for your feedbacks.
Best regards, Thomas, Leon & Mathieu <To Dublin and beyond.pdf>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Robin, Thank you for your quick feedback. I try to clarify below. Le 29/09/2015 00:10, Robin Gross a écrit :
Thanks, Mathieu, for this helpful proposal. I've got a couple questions for clarifications about some statements on the slides.
1. On slide 7, the last one, on point 2 it says "Ensure that Board briefings on CCWG are (also) provided by CCWG co-chairs". Does this mean those briefings will be provided to CCWG members via the co-chairs? Or was the "by" meant to be a "to" in that statement (or something else)? It wasn't quite clear to me. This sentence is probably confusing. It might be expressed more clearly in the correspondence to Steve Crocker : 3. At the same time, we reiterate our proposal to provide, as co-chairs, regular Board briefings during the Board meetings dedicated to Accountability, alongside the briefings provided by the President and staff. We would also welcome the opportunity to review the briefing materials received by Board members, and would understand if that was subject to a non disclosure agreement. So it was related to the briefings *of* the Board *by* CCWG.
I hope this clarifies ?
2. Also on slide 7, point 4 on the substantive work of the sub-teams (sub-part 2) "coordination by new small group (SO/AC reps, Board, Lawyers) to limit friction, no decision-making". Presumably this means the SO/AC reps appointed to CCWG. But which "board" members and which "lawyers" are proposed to coordinate the sub-teams in this new small group?
That is a good topic for discussion. At this point, this had been drawn from Ira Magaziner's suggestion to coordinate more closely within the leadership of the various groups. Best, Mathieu
Thanks much!
Best, Robin
On Sep 28, 2015, at 9:47 AM, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
In anticipation of a discussion during our meeting tomorrow, please find attached a set of slides to suggest a way forward, for the group's consideration.
Thank you for your feedbacks.
Best regards, Thomas, Leon & Mathieu <To Dublin and beyond.pdf>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
Dear Mathieu Pls carefully read my earlier message , I hope you are not acting like your co-chair not listening to the participants I AM STRONGLY AGAINST CREATING A SMALL CLOSED GROUP to discuss any issue what so ever. The CCWG Chater is quite clear. The community has given a rtasks to us to discuss openly freely and transparently. THE CHARTER THEREFORE DOES NOT SPEAK OF ANY CLOSED GROUP. If the CCWG and not Co-chair reach at a consensus that another group shouléd be formed to discuss the issue Under consideration with a view to find a way forward ,taking into account all inputs ( ccwg second Prooposal , Public Comments, Board,s proposal and the report of LA meeting) that groupm MUST BE OPEN TO EVERY BODY AND WE SHOULD AGREE ON ITS CHAIR OR CO-CHAIR. tHE ICANN process MUST BE OPEN, INCLUSSIVE, TRANSPARENT AND DEMOCRATIC. Pls kindly be careful and advoid creating a hiden/ closed cgroup Regards Kavouss 2015-09-29 11:50 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>:
Dear Robin,
Thank you for your quick feedback. I try to clarify below.
Le 29/09/2015 00:10, Robin Gross a écrit :
Thanks, Mathieu, for this helpful proposal. I've got a couple questions for clarifications about some statements on the slides.
1. On slide 7, the last one, on point 2 it says "Ensure that Board briefings on CCWG are (also) provided by CCWG co-chairs". Does this mean those briefings will be provided to CCWG members via the co-chairs? Or was the "by" meant to be a "to" in that statement (or something else)? It wasn't quite clear to me.
This sentence is probably confusing. It might be expressed more clearly in the correspondence to Steve Crocker :
3. At the same time, we reiterate our proposal to provide, as co-chairs, regular Board briefings during the Board meetings dedicated to Accountability, alongside the briefings provided by the President and staff. We would also welcome the opportunity to review the briefing materials received by Board members, and would understand if that was subject to a non disclosure agreement.
So it was related to the briefings *of* the Board *by* CCWG.
I hope this clarifies ?
2. Also on slide 7, point 4 on the substantive work of the sub-teams (sub-part 2) "coordination by new small group (SO/AC reps, Board, Lawyers) to limit friction, no decision-making". Presumably this means the SO/AC reps appointed to CCWG. But which "board" members and which "lawyers" are proposed to coordinate the sub-teams in this new small group?
That is a good topic for discussion. At this point, this had been drawn from Ira Magaziner's suggestion to coordinate more closely within the leadership of the various groups.
Best, Mathieu
Thanks much!
Best, Robin
On Sep 28, 2015, at 9:47 AM, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
In anticipation of a discussion during our meeting tomorrow, please find attached a set of slides to suggest a way forward, for the group's consideration.
Thank you for your feedbacks.
Best regards, Thomas, Leon & Mathieu <To Dublin and beyond.pdf>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Kavouss, At this point, the slides are a discussion starter and we look forward to the group's feedback. Your message is heard loud and clear, especially on the required openness and transparency. I would point out that the "coordination" mentioned in the slides is not related in any way to any decision making, but rather on updating about our progress. Best, Mathieu Le 29/09/2015 12:02, Kavouss Arasteh a écrit :
Dear Mathieu Pls carefully read my earlier message , I hope you are not acting like your co-chair not listening to the participants I AM STRONGLY AGAINST CREATING A SMALL CLOSED GROUP to discuss any issue what so ever. The CCWG Chater is quite clear. The community has given a rtasks to us to discuss openly freely and transparently. THE CHARTER THEREFORE DOES NOT SPEAK OF ANY CLOSED GROUP. If the CCWG and not Co-chair reach at a consensus that another group shouléd be formed to discuss the issue Under consideration with a view to find a way forward ,taking into account all inputs ( ccwg second Prooposal , Public Comments, Board,s proposal and the report of LA meeting) that groupm MUST BE OPEN TO EVERY BODY AND WE SHOULD AGREE ON ITS CHAIR OR CO-CHAIR. tHE ICANN process MUST BE OPEN, INCLUSSIVE, TRANSPARENT AND DEMOCRATIC. Pls kindly be careful and advoid creating a hiden/ closed cgroup Regards Kavouss
2015-09-29 11:50 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>:
Dear Robin,
Thank you for your quick feedback. I try to clarify below.
Le 29/09/2015 00:10, Robin Gross a écrit :
Thanks, Mathieu, for this helpful proposal. I've got a couple questions for clarifications about some statements on the slides.
1. On slide 7, the last one, on point 2 it says "Ensure that Board briefings on CCWG are (also) provided by CCWG co-chairs". Does this mean those briefings will be provided to CCWG members via the co-chairs? Or was the "by" meant to be a "to" in that statement (or something else)? It wasn't quite clear to me.
This sentence is probably confusing. It might be expressed more clearly in the correspondence to Steve Crocker :
3. At the same time, we reiterate our proposal to provide, as co-chairs, regular Board briefings during the Board meetings dedicated to Accountability, alongside the briefings provided by the President and staff. We would also welcome the opportunity to review the briefing materials received by Board members, and would understand if that was subject to a non disclosure agreement.
So it was related to the briefings *of* the Board *by* CCWG.
I hope this clarifies ?
2. Also on slide 7, point 4 on the substantive work of the sub-teams (sub-part 2) "coordination by new small group (SO/AC reps, Board, Lawyers) to limit friction, no decision-making". Presumably this means the SO/AC reps appointed to CCWG. But which "board" members and which "lawyers" are proposed to coordinate the sub-teams in this new small group?
That is a good topic for discussion. At this point, this had been drawn from Ira Magaziner's suggestion to coordinate more closely within the leadership of the various groups.
Best, Mathieu
Thanks much!
Best, Robin
On Sep 28, 2015, at 9:47 AM, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
In anticipation of a discussion during our meeting tomorrow, please find attached a set of slides to suggest a way forward, for the group's consideration.
Thank you for your feedbacks.
Best regards, Thomas, Leon & Mathieu <To Dublin and beyond.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 <tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006> mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
Yes but I do not want to be drvant fait a compli .'any one free to informally and on private basis discuss any thing without any formal status. What they formally discuss is totally open to be rediscussed . CCWG under the current charter is not authorised to create a closed group and discuss any issue behind the closed door. Pls warn Thomas to be kind with every body and do not act like a commander Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 29 Sep 2015, at 14:50, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Kavouss,
At this point, the slides are a discussion starter and we look forward to the group's feedback.
Your message is heard loud and clear, especially on the required openness and transparency.
I would point out that the "coordination" mentioned in the slides is not related in any way to any decision making, but rather on updating about our progress.
Best, Mathieu
Le 29/09/2015 12:02, Kavouss Arasteh a écrit :
Dear Mathieu Pls carefully read my earlier message , I hope you are not acting like your co-chair not listening to the participants I AM STRONGLY AGAINST CREATING A SMALL CLOSED GROUP to discuss any issue what so ever. The CCWG Chater is quite clear. The community has given a rtasks to us to discuss openly freely and transparently. THE CHARTER THEREFORE DOES NOT SPEAK OF ANY CLOSED GROUP. If the CCWG and not Co-chair reach at a consensus that another group shouléd be formed to discuss the issue Under consideration with a view to find a way forward ,taking into account all inputs ( ccwg second Prooposal , Public Comments, Board,s proposal and the report of LA meeting) that groupm MUST BE OPEN TO EVERY BODY AND WE SHOULD AGREE ON ITS CHAIR OR CO-CHAIR. tHE ICANN process MUST BE OPEN, INCLUSSIVE, TRANSPARENT AND DEMOCRATIC. Pls kindly be careful and advoid creating a hiden/ closed cgroup Regards Kavouss
2015-09-29 11:50 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>:
Dear Robin,
Thank you for your quick feedback. I try to clarify below.
Le 29/09/2015 00:10, Robin Gross a écrit :
Thanks, Mathieu, for this helpful proposal. I've got a couple questions for clarifications about some statements on the slides.
1. On slide 7, the last one, on point 2 it says "Ensure that Board briefings on CCWG are (also) provided by CCWG co-chairs". Does this mean those briefings will be provided to CCWG members via the co-chairs? Or was the "by" meant to be a "to" in that statement (or something else)? It wasn't quite clear to me. This sentence is probably confusing. It might be expressed more clearly in the correspondence to Steve Crocker : 3. At the same time, we reiterate our proposal to provide, as co-chairs, regular Board briefings during the Board meetings dedicated to Accountability, alongside the briefings provided by the President and staff. We would also welcome the opportunity to review the briefing materials received by Board members, and would understand if that was subject to a non disclosure agreement. So it was related to the briefings *of* the Board *by* CCWG.
I hope this clarifies ?
2. Also on slide 7, point 4 on the substantive work of the sub-teams (sub-part 2) "coordination by new small group (SO/AC reps, Board, Lawyers) to limit friction, no decision-making". Presumably this means the SO/AC reps appointed to CCWG. But which "board" members and which "lawyers" are proposed to coordinate the sub-teams in this new small group?
That is a good topic for discussion. At this point, this had been drawn from Ira Magaziner's suggestion to coordinate more closely within the leadership of the various groups.
Best, Mathieu
Thanks much!
Best, Robin
On Sep 28, 2015, at 9:47 AM, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
In anticipation of a discussion during our meeting tomorrow, please find attached a set of slides to suggest a way forward, for the group's consideration.
Thank you for your feedbacks.
Best regards, Thomas, Leon & Mathieu <To Dublin and beyond.pdf>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
Thanks for your confidence, Kavouss :-) Thomas Autocratic Commander & Co-Chair ======== rickert.net PS - Sent from my cell. Please excuse typos and brevity.
Am 29.09.2015 um 16:56 schrieb Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Yes but I do not want to be drvant fait a compli .'any one free to informally and on private basis discuss any thing without any formal status. What they formally discuss is totally open to be rediscussed . CCWG under the current charter is not authorised to create a closed group and discuss any issue behind the closed door. Pls warn Thomas to be kind with every body and do not act like a commander Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 29 Sep 2015, at 14:50, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Kavouss,
At this point, the slides are a discussion starter and we look forward to the group's feedback.
Your message is heard loud and clear, especially on the required openness and transparency.
I would point out that the "coordination" mentioned in the slides is not related in any way to any decision making, but rather on updating about our progress.
Best, Mathieu
Le 29/09/2015 12:02, Kavouss Arasteh a écrit :
Dear Mathieu Pls carefully read my earlier message , I hope you are not acting like your co-chair not listening to the participants I AM STRONGLY AGAINST CREATING A SMALL CLOSED GROUP to discuss any issue what so ever. The CCWG Chater is quite clear. The community has given a rtasks to us to discuss openly freely and transparently. THE CHARTER THEREFORE DOES NOT SPEAK OF ANY CLOSED GROUP. If the CCWG and not Co-chair reach at a consensus that another group shouléd be formed to discuss the issue Under consideration with a view to find a way forward ,taking into account all inputs ( ccwg second Prooposal , Public Comments, Board,s proposal and the report of LA meeting) that groupm MUST BE OPEN TO EVERY BODY AND WE SHOULD AGREE ON ITS CHAIR OR CO-CHAIR. tHE ICANN process MUST BE OPEN, INCLUSSIVE, TRANSPARENT AND DEMOCRATIC. Pls kindly be careful and advoid creating a hiden/ closed cgroup Regards Kavouss
2015-09-29 11:50 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>:
Dear Robin,
Thank you for your quick feedback. I try to clarify below.
Le 29/09/2015 00:10, Robin Gross a écrit :
Thanks, Mathieu, for this helpful proposal. I've got a couple questions for clarifications about some statements on the slides.
1. On slide 7, the last one, on point 2 it says "Ensure that Board briefings on CCWG are (also) provided by CCWG co-chairs". Does this mean those briefings will be provided to CCWG members via the co-chairs? Or was the "by" meant to be a "to" in that statement (or something else)? It wasn't quite clear to me. This sentence is probably confusing. It might be expressed more clearly in the correspondence to Steve Crocker : 3. At the same time, we reiterate our proposal to provide, as co-chairs, regular Board briefings during the Board meetings dedicated to Accountability, alongside the briefings provided by the President and staff. We would also welcome the opportunity to review the briefing materials received by Board members, and would understand if that was subject to a non disclosure agreement. So it was related to the briefings *of* the Board *by* CCWG.
I hope this clarifies ?
2. Also on slide 7, point 4 on the substantive work of the sub-teams (sub-part 2) "coordination by new small group (SO/AC reps, Board, Lawyers) to limit friction, no decision-making". Presumably this means the SO/AC reps appointed to CCWG. But which "board" members and which "lawyers" are proposed to coordinate the sub-teams in this new small group?
That is a good topic for discussion. At this point, this had been drawn from Ira Magaziner's suggestion to coordinate more closely within the leadership of the various groups.
Best, Mathieu
Thanks much!
Best, Robin
On Sep 28, 2015, at 9:47 AM, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
In anticipation of a discussion during our meeting tomorrow, please find attached a set of slides to suggest a way forward, for the group's consideration.
Thank you for your feedbacks.
Best regards, Thomas, Leon & Mathieu <To Dublin and beyond.pdf>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Mathieu Please note that we gave already been criticised as being closed pls ask Olivier le Blond when at WSIS when CCWG was criticised as not sufficiently opened to every body and I Defend your group as was fully opened. You established working parties with overlapping each others in their virtual call and even with the working party meeting with very limited participants . When at the group level we wanted to reopen the issue one of the co chair interrupted us aggressively and .unfriendly. Now you want to discuss issues within a closed group With very limited representation if the public. The chairs of the SOs and ACs were not elected with such a mandate nor the chairs od the WOs gave such a delegation of authorities.I reiterate and emphasise that we MUST be fully open to the entire public Members. Participants and observers. If you want to have a smooth meeting pls forget about closed meeting with any body that dies not gave a mandate to represent the public Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 29 Sep 2015, at 14:50, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Kavouss,
At this point, the slides are a discussion starter and we look forward to the group's feedback.
Your message is heard loud and clear, especially on the required openness and transparency.
I would point out that the "coordination" mentioned in the slides is not related in any way to any decision making, but rather on updating about our progress.
Best, Mathieu
Le 29/09/2015 12:02, Kavouss Arasteh a écrit :
Dear Mathieu Pls carefully read my earlier message , I hope you are not acting like your co-chair not listening to the participants I AM STRONGLY AGAINST CREATING A SMALL CLOSED GROUP to discuss any issue what so ever. The CCWG Chater is quite clear. The community has given a rtasks to us to discuss openly freely and transparently. THE CHARTER THEREFORE DOES NOT SPEAK OF ANY CLOSED GROUP. If the CCWG and not Co-chair reach at a consensus that another group shouléd be formed to discuss the issue Under consideration with a view to find a way forward ,taking into account all inputs ( ccwg second Prooposal , Public Comments, Board,s proposal and the report of LA meeting) that groupm MUST BE OPEN TO EVERY BODY AND WE SHOULD AGREE ON ITS CHAIR OR CO-CHAIR. tHE ICANN process MUST BE OPEN, INCLUSSIVE, TRANSPARENT AND DEMOCRATIC. Pls kindly be careful and advoid creating a hiden/ closed cgroup Regards Kavouss
2015-09-29 11:50 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>:
Dear Robin,
Thank you for your quick feedback. I try to clarify below.
Le 29/09/2015 00:10, Robin Gross a écrit :
Thanks, Mathieu, for this helpful proposal. I've got a couple questions for clarifications about some statements on the slides.
1. On slide 7, the last one, on point 2 it says "Ensure that Board briefings on CCWG are (also) provided by CCWG co-chairs". Does this mean those briefings will be provided to CCWG members via the co-chairs? Or was the "by" meant to be a "to" in that statement (or something else)? It wasn't quite clear to me. This sentence is probably confusing. It might be expressed more clearly in the correspondence to Steve Crocker : 3. At the same time, we reiterate our proposal to provide, as co-chairs, regular Board briefings during the Board meetings dedicated to Accountability, alongside the briefings provided by the President and staff. We would also welcome the opportunity to review the briefing materials received by Board members, and would understand if that was subject to a non disclosure agreement. So it was related to the briefings *of* the Board *by* CCWG.
I hope this clarifies ?
2. Also on slide 7, point 4 on the substantive work of the sub-teams (sub-part 2) "coordination by new small group (SO/AC reps, Board, Lawyers) to limit friction, no decision-making". Presumably this means the SO/AC reps appointed to CCWG. But which "board" members and which "lawyers" are proposed to coordinate the sub-teams in this new small group?
That is a good topic for discussion. At this point, this had been drawn from Ira Magaziner's suggestion to coordinate more closely within the leadership of the various groups.
Best, Mathieu
Thanks much!
Best, Robin
On Sep 28, 2015, at 9:47 AM, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
In anticipation of a discussion during our meeting tomorrow, please find attached a set of slides to suggest a way forward, for the group's consideration.
Thank you for your feedbacks.
Best regards, Thomas, Leon & Mathieu <To Dublin and beyond.pdf>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
participants (11)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Avri Doria -
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Greg Shatan -
Jordan Carter -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Mathieu Weill -
Robin Gross -
Seun Ojedeji -
Thomas Rickert