Objection to our present work planning
Dear co-chairs, dear all, I find myself in agreement with Eberhard with regard to the steep increase in the number of calls for both the CCWG as well as its subgroups like wp1 and acct-legal. It frustrates me to see that, after a period during which we burned a lot of time on -let me politely phrase it as „less relevant and/or out of scope”- subjects and several of us warned against the deadline becoming unreachable, we have know replaced the deadline that has become unrealistic with a work planning that is simply absurd. As a result, we now have roughly a two hour conference call every day of the week, several days with two calls, and thus more calls in a week at unholy hours. I object to this way of working, as it makes the whole process far less inclusive. Many of us have both a demanding job as well as a private life, both of which we cherish. For me it is now simply unavoidable to miss a significant part of the calls and impossible to deal with all the necessary working groups’ work in-between them. I know that this is now the case for quite a number of us. We are rushing forward to reach a deadline which is nothing more by now than a dead line, and in our hurry seem to accept that the process loses inclusiveness, transparency and accountability, leaving us with an outcome that will be of much lower quality. I for one, find this unacceptable. Best regards, Roelof A. Meijer CEO SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/> On 08-04-15 14:15, "Dr Eberhard Lisse" <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you very much.
so next week 3 calls (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, the latter of which I could not make even if I wanted to (see below))?
The following week another three (Monday, and 2 on Tuesday)?
More than one call per week is already difficult enough to absorb, but three? And then two on one day? When we are already spending too much time on process and very little on substance?
This is not conducive to thoughtful deliberation and as I have said numerous times I am opposed to rushing things through just because of a perceived deadline, which in our case does not even exist in reality.
I object to this.
And while we are at it, I have asked NUMEROUS times to have the legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root and/or the IANA function researched by our legal advisers. I was told it would be done, but it has not from what I can see and my repeated requests in this regards have been ignored by the Co-Chairs.
I have made several requests/suggestions in how to deal with the GAO, which the Co-Chairs do not agree with. Be that as it may, I reserve the rights to communicate my thoughts to the GAO as they have explicitly requested/suggested.
I have extremely serious concerns about at least the passage of the German collaborative white paper (or whatever it is called), which as far as ccTLDs are concerned is totally our of order and unacceptable, in as much it suggests that ccTLD/ccNSO policy being taken over by governments (which as we all know is opposed to the USG's stated intent.
The GAC Representative of Denmark has proposed in Istanbul during the ad-hoc Stress Test Breakfast, what I understand to be a total removal of ccNSO's policy making powers, in favor of governments deciding. Using the words "Out with the Old" he stated that the RFCs must be done away with. I am not clear whether this is the position of the Representative, his government or the GAC, but when read together with the above, this is not acceptable to me.
I have not that many concerns with regards to Delegation of a ccTLD (after establishment), including a Transfer of an exsiting ccTLD.
But as far as Revocation of an incumbent ccTLD Manager is concerned, I have stated numerous times, that we need to preserve the existing rights of incumbent ccTLD Managers.
This is NOT negotiable.
And the best way of doing this is by way of the Framework of Interpretation Principles.
Mr Chehade has apparently in public (and on the record) accused senior ccTLD managers of not knowing how the IANA functions work. As a ccTLD Manager with 24 years uninterrupted service I tend to agree that I do not know how the IANA function is operated by the current Function Manager (ICANN), though I do have a really good idea how it SHOULD be operated.
Therefor I have requested that Mr Chehade explain to us how this works. I can not find any feedback on this issue.
Unless these issues are addressed to my satisfaction (and I am not saying that they must be resolved necessarily to my satisfaction) I shall, as a ccNSO appointed member, be formally objecting to any output of the CCWG-Accountability.
I am circulating this to the usual ccTLD lists as well.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-08 12:10, Brenda Brewer wrote:
Hi Eberhard,
Please see attachment in pdf format.
Best, Brenda [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
Dear all, I agree with Eberhard and Roelof. I was one of those who insisted that we don’t have to try to comply with a deadline. Others before me made the same suggestion. We need to work for an agreed proposal by the whole members of this group. But unfortunately, running like we are doing now makes us accept decision with something similar to a consensus because most of the group members can’t stop everything in their job and their personal life to follow the work done by a few very dynamic and committed people who I thank very much for the amount of work they are doing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Roelof Meijer Envoyé : jeudi 9 avril 2015 13:01 À : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc : ccnso-council@icann.org Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning Dear co-chairs, dear all, I find myself in agreement with Eberhard with regard to the steep increase in the number of calls for both the CCWG as well as its subgroups like wp1 and acct-legal. It frustrates me to see that, after a period during which we burned a lot of time on -let me politely phrase it as „less relevant and/or out of scope”- subjects and several of us warned against the deadline becoming unreachable, we have know replaced the deadline that has become unrealistic with a work planning that is simply absurd. As a result, we now have roughly a two hour conference call every day of the week, several days with two calls, and thus more calls in a week at unholy hours. I object to this way of working, as it makes the whole process far less inclusive. Many of us have both a demanding job as well as a private life, both of which we cherish. For me it is now simply unavoidable to miss a significant part of the calls and impossible to deal with all the necessary working groups’ work in-between them. I know that this is now the case for quite a number of us. We are rushing forward to reach a deadline which is nothing more by now than a dead line, and in our hurry seem to accept that the process loses inclusiveness, transparency and accountability, leaving us with an outcome that will be of much lower quality. I for one, find this unacceptable. Best regards, Roelof A. Meijer CEO SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/> On 08-04-15 14:15, "Dr Eberhard Lisse" <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you very much.
so next week 3 calls (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, the latter of which
I could not make even if I wanted to (see below))?
The following week another three (Monday, and 2 on Tuesday)?
More than one call per week is already difficult enough to absorb,
but three? And then two on one day? When we are already spending
too much time on process and very little on substance?
This is not conducive to thoughtful deliberation and as I have said
numerous times I am opposed to rushing things through just because
of a perceived deadline, which in our case does not even exist in
reality.
I object to this.
And while we are at it, I have asked NUMEROUS times to have the
legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root and/or the IANA
function researched by our legal advisers. I was told it would be
done, but it has not from what I can see and my repeated requests in
this regards have been ignored by the Co-Chairs.
I have made several requests/suggestions in how to deal with the
GAO, which the Co-Chairs do not agree with. Be that as it may, I
reserve the rights to communicate my thoughts to the GAO as they
have explicitly requested/suggested.
I have extremely serious concerns about at least the passage of the
German collaborative white paper (or whatever it is called), which
as far as ccTLDs are concerned is totally our of order and
unacceptable, in as much it suggests that ccTLD/ccNSO policy being
taken over by governments (which as we all know is opposed to the
USG's stated intent.
The GAC Representative of Denmark has proposed in Istanbul during
the ad-hoc Stress Test Breakfast, what I understand to be a total
removal of ccNSO's policy making powers, in favor of governments
deciding. Using the words "Out with the Old" he stated that the
RFCs must be done away with. I am not clear whether this is the
position of the Representative, his government or the GAC, but when
read together with the above, this is not acceptable to me.
I have not that many concerns with regards to Delegation of a ccTLD
(after establishment), including a Transfer of an exsiting ccTLD.
But as far as Revocation of an incumbent ccTLD Manager is concerned,
I have stated numerous times, that we need to preserve the existing
rights of incumbent ccTLD Managers.
This is NOT negotiable.
And the best way of doing this is by way of the Framework of
Interpretation Principles.
Mr Chehade has apparently in public (and on the record) accused
senior ccTLD managers of not knowing how the IANA functions work.
As a ccTLD Manager with 24 years uninterrupted service I tend to
agree that I do not know how the IANA function is operated by the
current Function Manager (ICANN), though I do have a really good
idea how it SHOULD be operated.
Therefor I have requested that Mr Chehade explain to us how this
works. I can not find any feedback on this issue.
Unless these issues are addressed to my satisfaction (and I am not
saying that they must be resolved necessarily to my satisfaction) I
shall, as a ccNSO appointed member, be formally objecting to any
output of the CCWG-Accountability.
I am circulating this to the usual ccTLD lists as well.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-08 12:10, Brenda Brewer wrote:
Hi Eberhard,
Please see attachment in pdf format.
Best,
Brenda
[...]
--
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421 \ /
Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
_______________________________________________
ccTLDcommunity mailing list
ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org
http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to
ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com
Roelof, I share your concern and like you I'm not going to be able to attend every general, subgroup and sub-subgroup meeting going forward. We all have lives away from ICANN and invariably there are going to be times when other aspects of our existence need to take priority. I'm just amazed and very grateful that there are those who are able to volunteer and donate such an incredible amount of time to our joint effort. This is an exceptional group of people. I'm very happy that our immediate deadline was shifted from early to late April at the Istanbul meeting. It helped. I too wish we could go forward at an even more reasoned and considered pace. I can't attend the meeting tonight or, frankly, a few other nights where they have been scheduled. I'm committed to this project but I'm also committed to attending my own birthday party later this month. I sort of need to be there for that. So be it. Our CCWG is not operating in isolation and I do understand the need for a tight deadline. I don't like it, but I do understand it. I do have one request, though, that would allow me to participate in as complete a manner as I can going forward given my own circumstances. Would it be possible, even at additional cost, to have staff or contracted help to produce complete transcripts of the CCWG and WP sessions on a maximum 24 hour turnaround (or something approaching that)? My concern is that those of us who can't be at every meeting would either not participate in future sessions we could attend, feeling we weren't up to date on matters, or, even worse, would drag down future proceedings as we tried to understand that which we missed. Audio recordings are nice, but time consuming. Fast track transcripts, I think, could help alleviate some problems caused by the intensive work schedule. Thanks for considering, Ed On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
Dear co-chairs, dear all,
I find myself in agreement with Eberhard with regard to the steep increase in the number of calls for both the CCWG as well as its subgroups like wp1 and acct-legal.
It frustrates me to see that, after a period during which we burned a lot of time on -let me politely phrase it as „less relevant and/or out of scope”- subjects and several of us warned against the deadline becoming unreachable, we have know replaced the deadline that has become unrealistic with a work planning that is simply absurd.
As a result, we now have roughly a two hour conference call every day of the week, several days with two calls, and thus more calls in a week at unholy hours. I object to this way of working, as it makes the whole process far less inclusive. Many of us have both a demanding job as well as a private life, both of which we cherish. For me it is now simply unavoidable to miss a significant part of the calls and impossible to deal with all the necessary working groups’ work in-between them. I know that this is now the case for quite a number of us.
We are rushing forward to reach a deadline which is nothing more by now than a dead line, and in our hurry seem to accept that the process loses inclusiveness, transparency and accountability, leaving us with an outcome that will be of much lower quality.
I for one, find this unacceptable.
Best regards,
Roelof A. Meijer CEO
SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/>
On 08-04-15 14:15, "Dr Eberhard Lisse" <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you very much.
so next week 3 calls (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, the latter of which I could not make even if I wanted to (see below))?
The following week another three (Monday, and 2 on Tuesday)?
More than one call per week is already difficult enough to absorb, but three? And then two on one day? When we are already spending too much time on process and very little on substance?
This is not conducive to thoughtful deliberation and as I have said numerous times I am opposed to rushing things through just because of a perceived deadline, which in our case does not even exist in reality.
I object to this.
And while we are at it, I have asked NUMEROUS times to have the legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root and/or the IANA function researched by our legal advisers. I was told it would be done, but it has not from what I can see and my repeated requests in this regards have been ignored by the Co-Chairs.
I have made several requests/suggestions in how to deal with the GAO, which the Co-Chairs do not agree with. Be that as it may, I reserve the rights to communicate my thoughts to the GAO as they have explicitly requested/suggested.
I have extremely serious concerns about at least the passage of the German collaborative white paper (or whatever it is called), which as far as ccTLDs are concerned is totally our of order and unacceptable, in as much it suggests that ccTLD/ccNSO policy being taken over by governments (which as we all know is opposed to the USG's stated intent.
The GAC Representative of Denmark has proposed in Istanbul during the ad-hoc Stress Test Breakfast, what I understand to be a total removal of ccNSO's policy making powers, in favor of governments deciding. Using the words "Out with the Old" he stated that the RFCs must be done away with. I am not clear whether this is the position of the Representative, his government or the GAC, but when read together with the above, this is not acceptable to me.
I have not that many concerns with regards to Delegation of a ccTLD (after establishment), including a Transfer of an exsiting ccTLD.
But as far as Revocation of an incumbent ccTLD Manager is concerned, I have stated numerous times, that we need to preserve the existing rights of incumbent ccTLD Managers.
This is NOT negotiable.
And the best way of doing this is by way of the Framework of Interpretation Principles.
Mr Chehade has apparently in public (and on the record) accused senior ccTLD managers of not knowing how the IANA functions work. As a ccTLD Manager with 24 years uninterrupted service I tend to agree that I do not know how the IANA function is operated by the current Function Manager (ICANN), though I do have a really good idea how it SHOULD be operated.
Therefor I have requested that Mr Chehade explain to us how this works. I can not find any feedback on this issue.
Unless these issues are addressed to my satisfaction (and I am not saying that they must be resolved necessarily to my satisfaction) I shall, as a ccNSO appointed member, be formally objecting to any output of the CCWG-Accountability.
I am circulating this to the usual ccTLD lists as well.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-08 12:10, Brenda Brewer wrote:
Hi Eberhard,
Please see attachment in pdf format.
Best, Brenda [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 concern as expressed. What is the reasoning behind such acceleration? The deadline is surely not hard and fast? I don't think I am aware of any penalty clauses imposed on timeline for the community's deliberation. Some explanation for current strategy may well be warranted at this juncture. RD On Apr 9, 2015 9:03 PM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
Roelof,
I share your concern and like you I'm not going to be able to attend every general, subgroup and sub-subgroup meeting going forward. We all have lives away from ICANN and invariably there are going to be times when other aspects of our existence need to take priority. I'm just amazed and very grateful that there are those who are able to volunteer and donate such an incredible amount of time to our joint effort. This is an exceptional group of people.
I'm very happy that our immediate deadline was shifted from early to late April at the Istanbul meeting. It helped. I too wish we could go forward at an even more reasoned and considered pace. I can't attend the meeting tonight or, frankly, a few other nights where they have been scheduled. I'm committed to this project but I'm also committed to attending my own birthday party later this month. I sort of need to be there for that. So be it. Our CCWG is not operating in isolation and I do understand the need for a tight deadline. I don't like it, but I do understand it.
I do have one request, though, that would allow me to participate in as complete a manner as I can going forward given my own circumstances. Would it be possible, even at additional cost, to have staff or contracted help to produce complete transcripts of the CCWG and WP sessions on a maximum 24 hour turnaround (or something approaching that)? My concern is that those of us who can't be at every meeting would either not participate in future sessions we could attend, feeling we weren't up to date on matters, or, even worse, would drag down future proceedings as we tried to understand that which we missed. Audio recordings are nice, but time consuming. Fast track transcripts, I think, could help alleviate some problems caused by the intensive work schedule.
Thanks for considering,
Ed
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
Dear co-chairs, dear all,
I find myself in agreement with Eberhard with regard to the steep increase in the number of calls for both the CCWG as well as its subgroups like wp1 and acct-legal.
It frustrates me to see that, after a period during which we burned a lot of time on -let me politely phrase it as „less relevant and/or out of scope”- subjects and several of us warned against the deadline becoming unreachable, we have know replaced the deadline that has become unrealistic with a work planning that is simply absurd.
As a result, we now have roughly a two hour conference call every day of the week, several days with two calls, and thus more calls in a week at unholy hours. I object to this way of working, as it makes the whole process far less inclusive. Many of us have both a demanding job as well as a private life, both of which we cherish. For me it is now simply unavoidable to miss a significant part of the calls and impossible to deal with all the necessary working groups’ work in-between them. I know that this is now the case for quite a number of us.
We are rushing forward to reach a deadline which is nothing more by now than a dead line, and in our hurry seem to accept that the process loses inclusiveness, transparency and accountability, leaving us with an outcome that will be of much lower quality.
I for one, find this unacceptable.
Best regards,
Roelof A. Meijer CEO
SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/>
On 08-04-15 14:15, "Dr Eberhard Lisse" <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you very much.
so next week 3 calls (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, the latter of which I could not make even if I wanted to (see below))?
The following week another three (Monday, and 2 on Tuesday)?
More than one call per week is already difficult enough to absorb, but three? And then two on one day? When we are already spending too much time on process and very little on substance?
This is not conducive to thoughtful deliberation and as I have said numerous times I am opposed to rushing things through just because of a perceived deadline, which in our case does not even exist in reality.
I object to this.
And while we are at it, I have asked NUMEROUS times to have the legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root and/or the IANA function researched by our legal advisers. I was told it would be done, but it has not from what I can see and my repeated requests in this regards have been ignored by the Co-Chairs.
I have made several requests/suggestions in how to deal with the GAO, which the Co-Chairs do not agree with. Be that as it may, I reserve the rights to communicate my thoughts to the GAO as they have explicitly requested/suggested.
I have extremely serious concerns about at least the passage of the German collaborative white paper (or whatever it is called), which as far as ccTLDs are concerned is totally our of order and unacceptable, in as much it suggests that ccTLD/ccNSO policy being taken over by governments (which as we all know is opposed to the USG's stated intent.
The GAC Representative of Denmark has proposed in Istanbul during the ad-hoc Stress Test Breakfast, what I understand to be a total removal of ccNSO's policy making powers, in favor of governments deciding. Using the words "Out with the Old" he stated that the RFCs must be done away with. I am not clear whether this is the position of the Representative, his government or the GAC, but when read together with the above, this is not acceptable to me.
I have not that many concerns with regards to Delegation of a ccTLD (after establishment), including a Transfer of an exsiting ccTLD.
But as far as Revocation of an incumbent ccTLD Manager is concerned, I have stated numerous times, that we need to preserve the existing rights of incumbent ccTLD Managers.
This is NOT negotiable.
And the best way of doing this is by way of the Framework of Interpretation Principles.
Mr Chehade has apparently in public (and on the record) accused senior ccTLD managers of not knowing how the IANA functions work. As a ccTLD Manager with 24 years uninterrupted service I tend to agree that I do not know how the IANA function is operated by the current Function Manager (ICANN), though I do have a really good idea how it SHOULD be operated.
Therefor I have requested that Mr Chehade explain to us how this works. I can not find any feedback on this issue.
Unless these issues are addressed to my satisfaction (and I am not saying that they must be resolved necessarily to my satisfaction) I shall, as a ccNSO appointed member, be formally objecting to any output of the CCWG-Accountability.
I am circulating this to the usual ccTLD lists as well.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-08 12:10, Brenda Brewer wrote:
Hi Eberhard,
Please see attachment in pdf format.
Best, Brenda [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+ 1 to the concerns raise. I have really lost track in the process. WISDOM DONKOR Sosftware / Network Engineer Web/Open Government Platform Portal Specialist National Information Technology Agency (NITA) Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana Tel; +233 20 812881 Email: wisdom_dk@hotmail.com wisdom.donkor@data.gov.gh wisdom.dk@gmail.com Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: facebook@wisdom_dk Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 concern as expressed. What is the reasoning behind such acceleration? The deadline is surely not hard and fast? I don't think I am aware of any penalty clauses imposed on timeline for the community's deliberation. Some explanation for current strategy may well be warranted at this juncture. RD On Apr 9, 2015 9:03 PM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
Roelof,
I share your concern and like you I'm not going to be able to attend every general, subgroup and sub-subgroup meeting going forward. We all have lives away from ICANN and invariably there are going to be times when other aspects of our existence need to take priority. I'm just amazed and very grateful that there are those who are able to volunteer and donate such an incredible amount of time to our joint effort. This is an exceptional group of people.
I'm very happy that our immediate deadline was shifted from early to late April at the Istanbul meeting. It helped. I too wish we could go forward at an even more reasoned and considered pace. I can't attend the meeting tonight or, frankly, a few other nights where they have been scheduled. I'm committed to this project but I'm also committed to attending my own birthday party later this month. I sort of need to be there for that. So be it. Our CCWG is not operating in isolation and I do understand the need for a tight deadline. I don't like it, but I do understand it.
I do have one request, though, that would allow me to participate in as complete a manner as I can going forward given my own circumstances. Would it be possible, even at additional cost, to have staff or contracted help to produce complete transcripts of the CCWG and WP sessions on a maximum 24 hour turnaround (or something approaching that)? My concern is that those of us who can't be at every meeting would either not participate in future sessions we could attend, feeling we weren't up to date on matters, or, even worse, would drag down future proceedings as we tried to understand that which we missed. Audio recordings are nice, but time consuming. Fast track transcripts, I think, could help alleviate some problems caused by the intensive work schedule.
Thanks for considering,
Ed
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
Dear co-chairs, dear all,
I find myself in agreement with Eberhard with regard to the steep increase in the number of calls for both the CCWG as well as its subgroups like wp1 and acct-legal.
It frustrates me to see that, after a period during which we burned a lot of time on -let me politely phrase it as „less relevant and/or out of scope”- subjects and several of us warned against the deadline becoming unreachable, we have know replaced the deadline that has become unrealistic with a work planning that is simply absurd.
As a result, we now have roughly a two hour conference call every day of the week, several days with two calls, and thus more calls in a week at unholy hours. I object to this way of working, as it makes the whole process far less inclusive. Many of us have both a demanding job as well as a private life, both of which we cherish. For me it is now simply unavoidable to miss a significant part of the calls and impossible to deal with all the necessary working groups’ work in-between them. I know that this is now the case for quite a number of us.
We are rushing forward to reach a deadline which is nothing more by now than a dead line, and in our hurry seem to accept that the process loses inclusiveness, transparency and accountability, leaving us with an outcome that will be of much lower quality.
I for one, find this unacceptable.
Best regards,
Roelof A. Meijer CEO
SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/>
On 08-04-15 14:15, "Dr Eberhard Lisse" <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you very much.
so next week 3 calls (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, the latter of which I could not make even if I wanted to (see below))?
The following week another three (Monday, and 2 on Tuesday)?
More than one call per week is already difficult enough to absorb, but three? And then two on one day? When we are already spending too much time on process and very little on substance?
This is not conducive to thoughtful deliberation and as I have said numerous times I am opposed to rushing things through just because of a perceived deadline, which in our case does not even exist in reality.
I object to this.
And while we are at it, I have asked NUMEROUS times to have the legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root and/or the IANA function researched by our legal advisers. I was told it would be done, but it has not from what I can see and my repeated requests in this regards have been ignored by the Co-Chairs.
I have made several requests/suggestions in how to deal with the GAO, which the Co-Chairs do not agree with. Be that as it may, I reserve the rights to communicate my thoughts to the GAO as they have explicitly requested/suggested.
I have extremely serious concerns about at least the passage of the German collaborative white paper (or whatever it is called), which as far as ccTLDs are concerned is totally our of order and unacceptable, in as much it suggests that ccTLD/ccNSO policy being taken over by governments (which as we all know is opposed to the USG's stated intent.
The GAC Representative of Denmark has proposed in Istanbul during the ad-hoc Stress Test Breakfast, what I understand to be a total removal of ccNSO's policy making powers, in favor of governments deciding. Using the words "Out with the Old" he stated that the RFCs must be done away with. I am not clear whether this is the position of the Representative, his government or the GAC, but when read together with the above, this is not acceptable to me.
I have not that many concerns with regards to Delegation of a ccTLD (after establishment), including a Transfer of an exsiting ccTLD.
But as far as Revocation of an incumbent ccTLD Manager is concerned, I have stated numerous times, that we need to preserve the existing rights of incumbent ccTLD Managers.
This is NOT negotiable.
And the best way of doing this is by way of the Framework of Interpretation Principles.
Mr Chehade has apparently in public (and on the record) accused senior ccTLD managers of not knowing how the IANA functions work. As a ccTLD Manager with 24 years uninterrupted service I tend to agree that I do not know how the IANA function is operated by the current Function Manager (ICANN), though I do have a really good idea how it SHOULD be operated.
Therefor I have requested that Mr Chehade explain to us how this works. I can not find any feedback on this issue.
Unless these issues are addressed to my satisfaction (and I am not saying that they must be resolved necessarily to my satisfaction) I shall, as a ccNSO appointed member, be formally objecting to any output of the CCWG-Accountability.
I am circulating this to the usual ccTLD lists as well.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-08 12:10, Brenda Brewer wrote:
Hi Eberhard,
Please see attachment in pdf format.
Best, Brenda [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
_______________________________________________ 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
This is an *Excellent* suggestion in my humble opinion Ed... *Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ... *(CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr [image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me] <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> On 10 April 2015 at 11:03, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
Roelof,
I share your concern and like you I'm not going to be able to attend every general, subgroup and sub-subgroup meeting going forward. We all have lives away from ICANN and invariably there are going to be times when other aspects of our existence need to take priority. I'm just amazed and very grateful that there are those who are able to volunteer and donate such an incredible amount of time to our joint effort. This is an exceptional group of people.
I'm very happy that our immediate deadline was shifted from early to late April at the Istanbul meeting. It helped. I too wish we could go forward at an even more reasoned and considered pace. I can't attend the meeting tonight or, frankly, a few other nights where they have been scheduled. I'm committed to this project but I'm also committed to attending my own birthday party later this month. I sort of need to be there for that. So be it. Our CCWG is not operating in isolation and I do understand the need for a tight deadline. I don't like it, but I do understand it.
I do have one request, though, that would allow me to participate in as complete a manner as I can going forward given my own circumstances. Would it be possible, even at additional cost, to have staff or contracted help to produce complete transcripts of the CCWG and WP sessions on a maximum 24 hour turnaround (or something approaching that)? My concern is that those of us who can't be at every meeting would either not participate in future sessions we could attend, feeling we weren't up to date on matters, or, even worse, would drag down future proceedings as we tried to understand that which we missed. Audio recordings are nice, but time consuming. Fast track transcripts, I think, could help alleviate some problems caused by the intensive work schedule.
Thanks for considering,
Ed
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
Dear co-chairs, dear all,
I find myself in agreement with Eberhard with regard to the steep increase in the number of calls for both the CCWG as well as its subgroups like wp1 and acct-legal.
It frustrates me to see that, after a period during which we burned a lot of time on -let me politely phrase it as „less relevant and/or out of scope”- subjects and several of us warned against the deadline becoming unreachable, we have know replaced the deadline that has become unrealistic with a work planning that is simply absurd.
As a result, we now have roughly a two hour conference call every day of the week, several days with two calls, and thus more calls in a week at unholy hours. I object to this way of working, as it makes the whole process far less inclusive. Many of us have both a demanding job as well as a private life, both of which we cherish. For me it is now simply unavoidable to miss a significant part of the calls and impossible to deal with all the necessary working groups’ work in-between them. I know that this is now the case for quite a number of us.
We are rushing forward to reach a deadline which is nothing more by now than a dead line, and in our hurry seem to accept that the process loses inclusiveness, transparency and accountability, leaving us with an outcome that will be of much lower quality.
I for one, find this unacceptable.
Best regards,
Roelof A. Meijer CEO
SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/>
On 08-04-15 14:15, "Dr Eberhard Lisse" <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you very much.
so next week 3 calls (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, the latter of which I could not make even if I wanted to (see below))?
The following week another three (Monday, and 2 on Tuesday)?
More than one call per week is already difficult enough to absorb, but three? And then two on one day? When we are already spending too much time on process and very little on substance?
This is not conducive to thoughtful deliberation and as I have said numerous times I am opposed to rushing things through just because of a perceived deadline, which in our case does not even exist in reality.
I object to this.
And while we are at it, I have asked NUMEROUS times to have the legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root and/or the IANA function researched by our legal advisers. I was told it would be done, but it has not from what I can see and my repeated requests in this regards have been ignored by the Co-Chairs.
I have made several requests/suggestions in how to deal with the GAO, which the Co-Chairs do not agree with. Be that as it may, I reserve the rights to communicate my thoughts to the GAO as they have explicitly requested/suggested.
I have extremely serious concerns about at least the passage of the German collaborative white paper (or whatever it is called), which as far as ccTLDs are concerned is totally our of order and unacceptable, in as much it suggests that ccTLD/ccNSO policy being taken over by governments (which as we all know is opposed to the USG's stated intent.
The GAC Representative of Denmark has proposed in Istanbul during the ad-hoc Stress Test Breakfast, what I understand to be a total removal of ccNSO's policy making powers, in favor of governments deciding. Using the words "Out with the Old" he stated that the RFCs must be done away with. I am not clear whether this is the position of the Representative, his government or the GAC, but when read together with the above, this is not acceptable to me.
I have not that many concerns with regards to Delegation of a ccTLD (after establishment), including a Transfer of an exsiting ccTLD.
But as far as Revocation of an incumbent ccTLD Manager is concerned, I have stated numerous times, that we need to preserve the existing rights of incumbent ccTLD Managers.
This is NOT negotiable.
And the best way of doing this is by way of the Framework of Interpretation Principles.
Mr Chehade has apparently in public (and on the record) accused senior ccTLD managers of not knowing how the IANA functions work. As a ccTLD Manager with 24 years uninterrupted service I tend to agree that I do not know how the IANA function is operated by the current Function Manager (ICANN), though I do have a really good idea how it SHOULD be operated.
Therefor I have requested that Mr Chehade explain to us how this works. I can not find any feedback on this issue.
Unless these issues are addressed to my satisfaction (and I am not saying that they must be resolved necessarily to my satisfaction) I shall, as a ccNSO appointed member, be formally objecting to any output of the CCWG-Accountability.
I am circulating this to the usual ccTLD lists as well.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-08 12:10, Brenda Brewer wrote:
Hi Eberhard,
Please see attachment in pdf format.
Best, Brenda [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
No, Cheryl, it is not, with all due respect to Ed. It is again fiddling with process and not dealing with substance. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 10, 2015, at 04:20, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
This is an *Excellent* suggestion in my humble opinion Ed...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
On 10 April 2015 at 11:03, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote: Roelof,
I share your concern and like you I'm not going to be able to attend every general, subgroup and sub-subgroup meeting going forward. We all have lives away from ICANN and invariably there are going to be times when other aspects of our existence need to take priority. I'm just amazed and very grateful that there are those who are able to volunteer and donate such an incredible amount of time to our joint effort. This is an exceptional group of people.
I'm very happy that our immediate deadline was shifted from early to late April at the Istanbul meeting. It helped. I too wish we could go forward at an even more reasoned and considered pace. I can't attend the meeting tonight or, frankly, a few other nights where they have been scheduled. I'm committed to this project but I'm also committed to attending my own birthday party later this month. I sort of need to be there for that. So be it. Our CCWG is not operating in isolation and I do understand the need for a tight deadline. I don't like it, but I do understand it.
I do have one request, though, that would allow me to participate in as complete a manner as I can going forward given my own circumstances. Would it be possible, even at additional cost, to have staff or contracted help to produce complete transcripts of the CCWG and WP sessions on a maximum 24 hour turnaround (or something approaching that)? My concern is that those of us who can't be at every meeting would either not participate in future sessions we could attend, feeling we weren't up to date on matters, or, even worse, would drag down future proceedings as we tried to understand that which we missed. Audio recordings are nice, but time consuming. Fast track transcripts, I think, could help alleviate some problems caused by the intensive work schedule.
Thanks for considering,
Ed
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote: Dear co-chairs, dear all,
I find myself in agreement with Eberhard with regard to the steep increase in the number of calls for both the CCWG as well as its subgroups like wp1 and acct-legal.
It frustrates me to see that, after a period during which we burned a lot of time on -let me politely phrase it as „less relevant and/or out of scope”- subjects and several of us warned against the deadline becoming unreachable, we have know replaced the deadline that has become unrealistic with a work planning that is simply absurd.
As a result, we now have roughly a two hour conference call every day of the week, several days with two calls, and thus more calls in a week at unholy hours. I object to this way of working, as it makes the whole process far less inclusive. Many of us have both a demanding job as well as a private life, both of which we cherish. For me it is now simply unavoidable to miss a significant part of the calls and impossible to deal with all the necessary working groups’ work in-between them. I know that this is now the case for quite a number of us.
We are rushing forward to reach a deadline which is nothing more by now than a dead line, and in our hurry seem to accept that the process loses inclusiveness, transparency and accountability, leaving us with an outcome that will be of much lower quality.
I for one, find this unacceptable.
Best regards,
Roelof A. Meijer CEO
SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/>
On 08-04-15 14:15, "Dr Eberhard Lisse" <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you very much.
so next week 3 calls (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, the latter of which I could not make even if I wanted to (see below))?
The following week another three (Monday, and 2 on Tuesday)?
More than one call per week is already difficult enough to absorb, but three? And then two on one day? When we are already spending too much time on process and very little on substance?
This is not conducive to thoughtful deliberation and as I have said numerous times I am opposed to rushing things through just because of a perceived deadline, which in our case does not even exist in reality.
I object to this.
And while we are at it, I have asked NUMEROUS times to have the legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root and/or the IANA function researched by our legal advisers. I was told it would be done, but it has not from what I can see and my repeated requests in this regards have been ignored by the Co-Chairs.
I have made several requests/suggestions in how to deal with the GAO, which the Co-Chairs do not agree with. Be that as it may, I reserve the rights to communicate my thoughts to the GAO as they have explicitly requested/suggested.
I have extremely serious concerns about at least the passage of the German collaborative white paper (or whatever it is called), which as far as ccTLDs are concerned is totally our of order and unacceptable, in as much it suggests that ccTLD/ccNSO policy being taken over by governments (which as we all know is opposed to the USG's stated intent.
The GAC Representative of Denmark has proposed in Istanbul during the ad-hoc Stress Test Breakfast, what I understand to be a total removal of ccNSO's policy making powers, in favor of governments deciding. Using the words "Out with the Old" he stated that the RFCs must be done away with. I am not clear whether this is the position of the Representative, his government or the GAC, but when read together with the above, this is not acceptable to me.
I have not that many concerns with regards to Delegation of a ccTLD (after establishment), including a Transfer of an exsiting ccTLD.
But as far as Revocation of an incumbent ccTLD Manager is concerned, I have stated numerous times, that we need to preserve the existing rights of incumbent ccTLD Managers.
This is NOT negotiable.
And the best way of doing this is by way of the Framework of Interpretation Principles.
Mr Chehade has apparently in public (and on the record) accused senior ccTLD managers of not knowing how the IANA functions work. As a ccTLD Manager with 24 years uninterrupted service I tend to agree that I do not know how the IANA function is operated by the current Function Manager (ICANN), though I do have a really good idea how it SHOULD be operated.
Therefor I have requested that Mr Chehade explain to us how this works. I can not find any feedback on this issue.
Unless these issues are addressed to my satisfaction (and I am not saying that they must be resolved necessarily to my satisfaction) I shall, as a ccNSO appointed member, be formally objecting to any output of the CCWG-Accountability.
I am circulating this to the usual ccTLD lists as well.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-08 12:10, Brenda Brewer wrote:
Hi Eberhard,
Please see attachment in pdf format.
Best, Brenda [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Colleagues, This is to mention that, as co chairs, we are closely monitoring this discussion. As you know, we introduced this new work plan during the last CCWG call, meeting at the time no objection. We are however receptive to the concerns raised and welcome constructive inputs. Since I have just finished our CCWG-CWG co-chair coordination call, I can however confirm that the main reason for meeting the target date we set in Istanbul remains very much up to date : the CWG needs clarity on our proposals to confirm its own options. Delay on our side might jeopardize their timeline, which in turn affects the ICG, etc. We will get back to the group on Monday, once we also have greater clarity on the status of work party progress. Thanks to all of you for your commitment and inputs, which we encourage to focus on the working party inputs at this precise point. Mathieu Le 10/04/2015 07:34, Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit :
No, Cheryl, it is not, with all due respect to Ed.
It is again fiddling with process and not dealing with substance.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 10, 2015, at 04:20, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> wrote:
This is an *Excellent* suggestion in my humble opinion Ed...
/Cheryl Langdon-O//rr ... /(CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me
<http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>
On 10 April 2015 at 11:03, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:
Roelof,
I share your concern and like you I'm not going to be able to attend every general, subgroup and sub-subgroup meeting going forward. We all have lives away from ICANN and invariably there are going to be times when other aspects of our existence need to take priority. I'm just amazed and very grateful that there are those who are able to volunteer and donate such an incredible amount of time to our joint effort. This is an exceptional group of people.
I'm very happy that our immediate deadline was shifted from early to late April at the Istanbul meeting. It helped. I too wish we could go forward at an even more reasoned and considered pace. I can't attend the meeting tonight or, frankly, a few other nights where they have been scheduled. I'm committed to this project but I'm also committed to attending my own birthday party later this month. I sort of need to be there for that. So be it. Our CCWG is not operating in isolation and I do understand the need for a tight deadline. I don't like it, but I do understand it.
I do have one request, though, that would allow me to participate in as complete a manner as I can going forward given my own circumstances. Would it be possible, even at additional cost, to have staff or contracted help to produce complete transcripts of the CCWG and WP sessions on a maximum 24 hour turnaround (or something approaching that)? My concern is that those of us who can't be at every meeting would either not participate in future sessions we could attend, feeling we weren't up to date on matters, or, even worse, would drag down future proceedings as we tried to understand that which we missed. Audio recordings are nice, but time consuming. Fast track transcripts, I think, could help alleviate some problems caused by the intensive work schedule.
Thanks for considering,
Ed
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote:
Dear co-chairs, dear all,
I find myself in agreement with Eberhard with regard to the steep increase in the number of calls for both the CCWG as well as its subgroups like wp1 and acct-legal.
It frustrates me to see that, after a period during which we burned a lot of time on -let me politely phrase it as „less relevant and/or out of scope”- subjects and several of us warned against the deadline becoming unreachable, we have know replaced the deadline that has become unrealistic with a work planning that is simply absurd.
As a result, we now have roughly a two hour conference call every day of the week, several days with two calls, and thus more calls in a week at unholy hours. I object to this way of working, as it makes the whole process far less inclusive. Many of us have both a demanding job as well as a private life, both of which we cherish. For me it is now simply unavoidable to miss a significant part of the calls and impossible to deal with all the necessary working groups’ work in-between them. I know that this is now the case for quite a number of us.
We are rushing forward to reach a deadline which is nothing more by now than a dead line, and in our hurry seem to accept that the process loses inclusiveness, transparency and accountability, leaving us with an outcome that will be of much lower quality.
I for one, find this unacceptable.
Best regards,
Roelof A. Meijer CEO
SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 <tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2000> | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 <tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 <tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005> roelof.meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl> <http://www.sidn.nl/>
On 08-04-15 14:15, "Dr Eberhard Lisse" <el@lisse.NA <mailto:el@lisse.NA>> wrote:
>Thank you very much. > >so next week 3 calls (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, the latter of which >I could not make even if I wanted to (see below))? > >The following week another three (Monday, and 2 on Tuesday)? > > >More than one call per week is already difficult enough to absorb, >but three? And then two on one day? When we are already spending >too much time on process and very little on substance? > > >This is not conducive to thoughtful deliberation and as I have said >numerous times I am opposed to rushing things through just because >of a perceived deadline, which in our case does not even exist in >reality. > > I object to this. > > >And while we are at it, I have asked NUMEROUS times to have the >legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root and/or the IANA >function researched by our legal advisers. I was told it would be >done, but it has not from what I can see and my repeated requests in >this regards have been ignored by the Co-Chairs. > > >I have made several requests/suggestions in how to deal with the >GAO, which the Co-Chairs do not agree with. Be that as it may, I >reserve the rights to communicate my thoughts to the GAO as they >have explicitly requested/suggested. > > >I have extremely serious concerns about at least the passage of the >German collaborative white paper (or whatever it is called), which >as far as ccTLDs are concerned is totally our of order and >unacceptable, in as much it suggests that ccTLD/ccNSO policy being >taken over by governments (which as we all know is opposed to the >USG's stated intent. > >The GAC Representative of Denmark has proposed in Istanbul during >the ad-hoc Stress Test Breakfast, what I understand to be a total >removal of ccNSO's policy making powers, in favor of governments >deciding. Using the words "Out with the Old" he stated that the >RFCs must be done away with. I am not clear whether this is the >position of the Representative, his government or the GAC, but when >read together with the above, this is not acceptable to me. > >I have not that many concerns with regards to Delegation of a ccTLD >(after establishment), including a Transfer of an exsiting ccTLD. > >But as far as Revocation of an incumbent ccTLD Manager is concerned, >I have stated numerous times, that we need to preserve the existing >rights of incumbent ccTLD Managers. > >This is NOT negotiable. > >And the best way of doing this is by way of the Framework of >Interpretation Principles. > > >Mr Chehade has apparently in public (and on the record) accused >senior ccTLD managers of not knowing how the IANA functions work. >As a ccTLD Manager with 24 years uninterrupted service I tend to >agree that I do not know how the IANA function is operated by the >current Function Manager (ICANN), though I do have a really good >idea how it SHOULD be operated. > >Therefor I have requested that Mr Chehade explain to us how this >works. I can not find any feedback on this issue. > > >Unless these issues are addressed to my satisfaction (and I am not >saying that they must be resolved necessarily to my satisfaction) I >shall, as a ccNSO appointed member, be formally objecting to any >output of the CCWG-Accountability. > >I am circulating this to the usual ccTLD lists as well. > > >greetings, el > >On 2015-04-08 12:10, Brenda Brewer wrote: >> Hi Eberhard, >> >> Please see attachment in pdf format. >> >> Best, >> Brenda >[...] > >-- >Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) >el@lisse.NA <mailto:el@lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 <tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) >PO Box 8421 \ / >Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ >_______________________________________________ >ccTLDcommunity mailing list >ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org <mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> >http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity > >To unsubscribe please send a blank email to >ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org <mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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 Co-Chairs Leon and Thomas, I wish to thank your third Co-Chair for his email, below, which I feel even though content-free warrants wider circulation. For the record, ANY decision taken in the Wg needs at least 2 readings, hence the non-objection comment below makes things even worse. Reiterating that we have a deadline as argument against objections against such deadline shows that your colleague does not get it, or worse, intransigence. That said, I also do NOT recall ANY prior discussion about the date of the F2F in Buenos Aires, never mind after my objection. el On 2015-04-10 12:50, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
This is to mention that, as co chairs, we are closely monitoring this discussion. As you know, we introduced this new work plan during the last CCWG call, meeting at the time no objection. We are however receptive to the concerns raised and welcome constructive inputs.
Since I have just finished our CCWG-CWG co-chair coordination call, I can however confirm that the main reason for meeting the target date we set in Istanbul remains very much up to date : the CWG needs clarity on our proposals to confirm its own options. Delay on our side might jeopardize their timeline, which in turn affects the ICG, etc.
We will get back to the group on Monday, once we also have greater clarity on the status of work party progress.
Thanks to all of you for your commitment and inputs, which we encourage to focus on the working party inputs at this precise point.
Mathieu
[...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Support to continue as planned with priority to those items connected to CWG Kaviyss Sent from my iPhone
On 10 Apr 2015, at 13:50, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
This is to mention that, as co chairs, we are closely monitoring this discussion. As you know, we introduced this new work plan during the last CCWG call, meeting at the time no objection. We are however receptive to the concerns raised and welcome constructive inputs.
Since I have just finished our CCWG-CWG co-chair coordination call, I can however confirm that the main reason for meeting the target date we set in Istanbul remains very much up to date : the CWG needs clarity on our proposals to confirm its own options. Delay on our side might jeopardize their timeline, which in turn affects the ICG, etc.
We will get back to the group on Monday, once we also have greater clarity on the status of work party progress.
Thanks to all of you for your commitment and inputs, which we encourage to focus on the working party inputs at this precise point.
Mathieu
Le 10/04/2015 07:34, Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit :
No, Cheryl, it is not, with all due respect to Ed.
It is again fiddling with process and not dealing with substance.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 10, 2015, at 04:20, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
This is an *Excellent* suggestion in my humble opinion Ed...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
On 10 April 2015 at 11:03, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
Roelof,
I share your concern and like you I'm not going to be able to attend every general, subgroup and sub-subgroup meeting going forward. We all have lives away from ICANN and invariably there are going to be times when other aspects of our existence need to take priority. I'm just amazed and very grateful that there are those who are able to volunteer and donate such an incredible amount of time to our joint effort. This is an exceptional group of people.
I'm very happy that our immediate deadline was shifted from early to late April at the Istanbul meeting. It helped. I too wish we could go forward at an even more reasoned and considered pace. I can't attend the meeting tonight or, frankly, a few other nights where they have been scheduled. I'm committed to this project but I'm also committed to attending my own birthday party later this month. I sort of need to be there for that. So be it. Our CCWG is not operating in isolation and I do understand the need for a tight deadline. I don't like it, but I do understand it.
I do have one request, though, that would allow me to participate in as complete a manner as I can going forward given my own circumstances. Would it be possible, even at additional cost, to have staff or contracted help to produce complete transcripts of the CCWG and WP sessions on a maximum 24 hour turnaround (or something approaching that)? My concern is that those of us who can't be at every meeting would either not participate in future sessions we could attend, feeling we weren't up to date on matters, or, even worse, would drag down future proceedings as we tried to understand that which we missed. Audio recordings are nice, but time consuming. Fast track transcripts, I think, could help alleviate some problems caused by the intensive work schedule.
Thanks for considering,
Ed
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote: Dear co-chairs, dear all,
I find myself in agreement with Eberhard with regard to the steep increase in the number of calls for both the CCWG as well as its subgroups like wp1 and acct-legal.
It frustrates me to see that, after a period during which we burned a lot of time on -let me politely phrase it as „less relevant and/or out of scope”- subjects and several of us warned against the deadline becoming unreachable, we have know replaced the deadline that has become unrealistic with a work planning that is simply absurd.
As a result, we now have roughly a two hour conference call every day of the week, several days with two calls, and thus more calls in a week at unholy hours. I object to this way of working, as it makes the whole process far less inclusive. Many of us have both a demanding job as well as a private life, both of which we cherish. For me it is now simply unavoidable to miss a significant part of the calls and impossible to deal with all the necessary working groups’ work in-between them. I know that this is now the case for quite a number of us.
We are rushing forward to reach a deadline which is nothing more by now than a dead line, and in our hurry seem to accept that the process loses inclusiveness, transparency and accountability, leaving us with an outcome that will be of much lower quality.
I for one, find this unacceptable.
Best regards,
Roelof A. Meijer CEO
SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/>
On 08-04-15 14:15, "Dr Eberhard Lisse" <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you very much.
so next week 3 calls (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, the latter of which I could not make even if I wanted to (see below))?
The following week another three (Monday, and 2 on Tuesday)?
More than one call per week is already difficult enough to absorb, but three? And then two on one day? When we are already spending too much time on process and very little on substance?
This is not conducive to thoughtful deliberation and as I have said numerous times I am opposed to rushing things through just because of a perceived deadline, which in our case does not even exist in reality.
I object to this.
And while we are at it, I have asked NUMEROUS times to have the legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root and/or the IANA function researched by our legal advisers. I was told it would be done, but it has not from what I can see and my repeated requests in this regards have been ignored by the Co-Chairs.
I have made several requests/suggestions in how to deal with the GAO, which the Co-Chairs do not agree with. Be that as it may, I reserve the rights to communicate my thoughts to the GAO as they have explicitly requested/suggested.
I have extremely serious concerns about at least the passage of the German collaborative white paper (or whatever it is called), which as far as ccTLDs are concerned is totally our of order and unacceptable, in as much it suggests that ccTLD/ccNSO policy being taken over by governments (which as we all know is opposed to the USG's stated intent.
The GAC Representative of Denmark has proposed in Istanbul during the ad-hoc Stress Test Breakfast, what I understand to be a total removal of ccNSO's policy making powers, in favor of governments deciding. Using the words "Out with the Old" he stated that the RFCs must be done away with. I am not clear whether this is the position of the Representative, his government or the GAC, but when read together with the above, this is not acceptable to me.
I have not that many concerns with regards to Delegation of a ccTLD (after establishment), including a Transfer of an exsiting ccTLD.
But as far as Revocation of an incumbent ccTLD Manager is concerned, I have stated numerous times, that we need to preserve the existing rights of incumbent ccTLD Managers.
This is NOT negotiable.
And the best way of doing this is by way of the Framework of Interpretation Principles.
Mr Chehade has apparently in public (and on the record) accused senior ccTLD managers of not knowing how the IANA functions work. As a ccTLD Manager with 24 years uninterrupted service I tend to agree that I do not know how the IANA function is operated by the current Function Manager (ICANN), though I do have a really good idea how it SHOULD be operated.
Therefor I have requested that Mr Chehade explain to us how this works. I can not find any feedback on this issue.
Unless these issues are addressed to my satisfaction (and I am not saying that they must be resolved necessarily to my satisfaction) I shall, as a ccNSO appointed member, be formally objecting to any output of the CCWG-Accountability.
I am circulating this to the usual ccTLD lists as well.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-08 12:10, Brenda Brewer wrote: > Hi Eberhard, > > Please see attachment in pdf format. > > Best, > Brenda [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (10)
-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Dr Eberhard Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
-
Edward Morris -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Mathieu Weill -
Roelof Meijer -
Rudolph Daniel -
Tijani BEN JEMAA -
Wisdom Donkor