Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues, Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work. Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated. Good weekend to you all, Best, Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning 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-Orr ... (CLO) 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<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<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
+1 to the commendation and suggestion Thanks sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 10 Apr 2015 14:54, "Julia Katja Wolman" <jukacz@erst.dk> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues,
Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work.
Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated.
Good weekend to you all,
Best,
Julia
*Julia Katja Wolman*
*DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY*
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
*Fra:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *På vegne af *Mathieu Weill *Sendt:* 10. april 2015 13:50 *Til:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Emne:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
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...
*C**heryl **L**angdon-**O**rr ... *(CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
[image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me]
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
Dear CCWG-colleagues, We would also like to support the concerns expressed by other colleagues with respect to the current working schedule of the CCWG-Accountability. In its accountability review position paper from 27th September 2014, the Brazilian Government has expressed the following: . "Interested parties should not rush into decisions that might be later on challenged based on allegations they were made in a process that was not inclusive or transparent enough"; In line with what was stated above, we believe that an aggressive work schedule as the one which was set up for the next months - and in particular for the next weeks - may defeat the purpose of this very exercise being an inclusive process aimed at being considered legitimate by the wider stakeholder community.
From a government perspective - which sometime entails complex and long decision-making processes - it is extremely difficult (not to say impossible) to cope with the amount of issues that are being dealt with within this group in a short period of time.
From our viewpoint, the current discussions being carried out within the various Working Parties of the CCWG are of extreme importance and should therefore be based on a better informed participation of all members/participants, which requires appropriate reading and reflection time. Moreover, given the incipient involvement of the law firms in the process, the potential value of their expertise may not be taken into account in its full extent if we impose them short deadlines for advice.
That being said, we propose the next call of the CCWG be devoted to reviewing the timeline and devising meaningful solutions to conciliate the delivery expectations put upon us with our ability to produce well-thought and valuable accountability recommendations. Kind regards, Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Division of Information Society (DI) Ministry of External Relations - Brazil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 -----Mensagem original----- De: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Julia Katja Wolman Enviada em: sexta-feira, 10 de abril de 2015 10:44 Para: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; 'Mathieu Weill'; Thomas Rickert Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues, Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work. Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated. Good weekend to you all, Best, Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning 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 Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me<http://d13pix9kaak6wt.cloudfront.net/signature/colorbar.png> 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 <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 | 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 <tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (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 *****************************
+1 to Julias comment. There is a risk of losing too many people at this speed, where I feel some comments and positions might be lost down the road, just because their proponents are not able to follow each and every meeting. Regards Jorge Cancio Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 10.04.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>: Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues, Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work. Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated. Good weekend to you all, Best, Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning 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-Orr ... (CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr<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<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<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
Dear Colleagues, We also support concerns raised by our colleagues regarding our rather aggressive working schedule and agree with Brazil and Denmark that it may defeat the purpose of inclusiveness. Particularly taking into consideration that some stakeholders like governments have to reflect and consult widely to enable informed and meaningful participation. We support the proposal to review the timelines and explore solutions to address and manage the various expectations. Best regards Alice Munyua On 10/04/2015 19:28, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
+1 to Julias comment. There is a risk of losing too many people at this speed, where I feel some comments and positions might be lost down the road, just because their proponents are not able to follow each and every meeting.
Regards
Jorge Cancio
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 10.04.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>:
Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues,
Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work.
Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated.
Good weekend to you all,
Best,
Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
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-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr<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<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<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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I am less concerned with (and also less surprised by) the current acceleration in the CCWG's work. However, if the group does decide to triage its work, I suggest we look at solutions other than simply extending the timeline. Specifically, I suggest the following: *Split Work Stream 1 into 2 parts*: - WS1A: Items that are required by the CWG-IANA in order to present a complete proposal -- i.e., clear and necessary dependencies. - WS1B: Items that the CCWG believes must be in place prior to the transition, but which are not "clear and necessary dependencies" of the CWG-IANA proposal. WS1A really needs to stay on the current timeframe. This work is intertwined and interdependent with the CWG. Without it, there is a very significant risk that the CWG's work product will be perceived as so incomplete that it will be difficult for some groups to give reasonable comments. Under this proposal, the Draft Report on the 21st would be limited to the WS1A items. WS1B would then be put to the side while WS1A is completed for the Draft Proposal. It would then be worked on immediately after the proposal goes out. It could then be the subject of a separate draft report to come out a few (or more than a few) weeks hence. This would lighten the load and allow us to focus on fewer moving parts, while still meeting the timeline with the most time-sensitive part of our deliverable. I look forward to comments on this proposed solution. Greg Shatan On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@dotafrica.org> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
We also support concerns raised by our colleagues regarding our rather aggressive working schedule and agree with Brazil and Denmark that it may defeat the purpose of inclusiveness. Particularly taking into consideration that some stakeholders like governments have to reflect and consult widely to enable informed and meaningful participation.
We support the proposal to review the timelines and explore solutions to address and manage the various expectations.
Best regards
Alice Munyua
On 10/04/2015 19:28, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
+1 to Julias comment. There is a risk of losing too many people at this speed, where I feel some comments and positions might be lost down the road, just because their proponents are not able to follow each and every meeting.
Regards
Jorge Cancio
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 10.04.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <jukacz@erst.dk>>:
Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues,
Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work.
Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated.
Good weekend to you all,
Best,
Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <jukacz@erst.dk>www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] På vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
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> <langdonorr@gmail.com>> wrote: This is an *Excellent* suggestion in my humble opinion Ed...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr<http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>
On 10 April 2015 at 11:03, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> <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> <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> <%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2000> | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775<tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> <%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05<tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005> <%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005>roelof.meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> <roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl<http://www.sidn.nl> <http://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> <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> <el@lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733<tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> <%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing listccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> <ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org>http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email toccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org> <ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <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> <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<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
All, as Mathieu indicated, we understand the concerns, take them very seriously and are working on suggestions to best move forward. Please give us a bit of time to assess the situation. Thanks, Thomas
Am 10.04.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
I am less concerned with (and also less surprised by) the current acceleration in the CCWG's work.
However, if the group does decide to triage its work, I suggest we look at solutions other than simply extending the timeline. Specifically, I suggest the following:
Split Work Stream 1 into 2 parts:
WS1A: Items that are required by the CWG-IANA in order to present a complete proposal -- i.e., clear and necessary dependencies. WS1B: Items that the CCWG believes must be in place prior to the transition, but which are not "clear and necessary dependencies" of the CWG-IANA proposal.
WS1A really needs to stay on the current timeframe. This work is intertwined and interdependent with the CWG. Without it, there is a very significant risk that the CWG's work product will be perceived as so incomplete that it will be difficult for some groups to give reasonable comments. Under this proposal, the Draft Report on the 21st would be limited to the WS1A items.
WS1B would then be put to the side while WS1A is completed for the Draft Proposal. It would then be worked on immediately after the proposal goes out. It could then be the subject of a separate draft report to come out a few (or more than a few) weeks hence.
This would lighten the load and allow us to focus on fewer moving parts, while still meeting the timeline with the most time-sensitive part of our deliverable.
I look forward to comments on this proposed solution.
Greg Shatan
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@dotafrica.org <mailto:alice@dotafrica.org>> wrote: Dear Colleagues,
We also support concerns raised by our colleagues regarding our rather aggressive working schedule and agree with Brazil and Denmark that it may defeat the purpose of inclusiveness. Particularly taking into consideration that some stakeholders like governments have to reflect and consult widely to enable informed and meaningful participation.
We support the proposal to review the timelines and explore solutions to address and manage the various expectations.
Best regards Alice Munyua
On 10/04/2015 19:28, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
+1 to Julias comment. There is a risk of losing too many people at this speed, where I feel some comments and positions might be lost down the road, just because their proponents are not able to follow each and every meeting.
Regards
Jorge Cancio
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 10.04.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>:
Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues,
Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work.
Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated.
Good weekend to you all,
Best,
Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 <tel:%2B45%203529%201000> Direct: +45 35291308 <tel:%2B45%2035291308> E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/><http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/>
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] På vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
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><mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com> <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> wrote: This is an *Excellent* suggestion in my humble opinion Ed...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr><http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>
On 10 April 2015 at 11:03, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net><mailto: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><mailto: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> <tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2000> | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775<tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> <tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05<tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005> <tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005> roelof.meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl><mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> <mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/><http://www.sidn.nl> <http://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><mailto: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><mailto:el@lisse.NA> <mailto:el@lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 <tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733><tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> <tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org <mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org><mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> <mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity <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><mailto: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><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
--
*****************************
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><mailto: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><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co-Chairs, Greg's proposal, as sincere as it is, seems deadline driven and would add more layers to the process making substance even more elusive. No, as I already told you in Singapore, we have been going at this fundamentally wrong and should probably start fresh. But at the very least we need to step back and look at what we are doing (substance) and once that is done how we are doing it (process). To my surprise, there is cross constituency dissent, and just this fact alone should have all alarm bells ringing. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 10, 2015, at 21:13, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
All, as Mathieu indicated, we understand the concerns, take them very seriously and are working on suggestions to best move forward. Please give us a bit of time to assess the situation.
Thanks, Thomas
Am 10.04.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
I am less concerned with (and also less surprised by) the current acceleration in the CCWG's work.
However, if the group does decide to triage its work, I suggest we look at solutions other than simply extending the timeline. Specifically, I suggest the following:
Split Work Stream 1 into 2 parts:
WS1A: Items that are required by the CWG-IANA in order to present a complete proposal -- i.e., clear and necessary dependencies. WS1B: Items that the CCWG believes must be in place prior to the transition, but which are not "clear and necessary dependencies" of the CWG-IANA proposal.
WS1A really needs to stay on the current timeframe. This work is intertwined and interdependent with the CWG. Without it, there is a very significant risk that the CWG's work product will be perceived as so incomplete that it will be difficult for some groups to give reasonable comments. Under this proposal, the Draft Report on the 21st would be limited to the WS1A items.
WS1B would then be put to the side while WS1A is completed for the Draft Proposal. It would then be worked on immediately after the proposal goes out. It could then be the subject of a separate draft report to come out a few (or more than a few) weeks hence.
This would lighten the load and allow us to focus on fewer moving parts, while still meeting the timeline with the most time-sensitive part of our deliverable.
I look forward to comments on this proposed solution.
Greg Shatan
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@dotafrica.org> wrote: Dear Colleagues,
We also support concerns raised by our colleagues regarding our rather aggressive working schedule and agree with Brazil and Denmark that it may defeat the purpose of inclusiveness. Particularly taking into consideration that some stakeholders like governments have to reflect and consult widely to enable informed and meaningful participation.
We support the proposal to review the timelines and explore solutions to address and manage the various expectations.
Best regards Alice Munyua
On 10/04/2015 19:28, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote: +1 to Julias comment. There is a risk of losing too many people at this speed, where I feel some comments and positions might be lost down the road, just because their proponents are not able to follow each and every meeting.
Regards
Jorge Cancio
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 10.04.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>:
Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues,
Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work.
Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated.
Good weekend to you all,
Best,
Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
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-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr<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<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<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 _______________________________________________ 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
Dear All, Can we step back and ask he following questions. 1. What was done so far, so good and clear to all? 2. Can moderators raise a pitch to place certain issues in a bowl? 3. Can we look at the pitch and kick off from it? 4. Can we allow staffs and consultants to work a synopsis for review? If we are to manage the timeline, we need to be cautious to get participants and representative support and approval. I believe that we are still on track with members showing concern for direction. Regards. On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Greg's proposal, as sincere as it is, seems deadline driven and would add more layers to the process making substance even more elusive.
No, as I already told you in Singapore, we have been going at this fundamentally wrong and should probably start fresh.
But at the very least we need to step back and look at what we are doing (substance) and once that is done how we are doing it (process).
To my surprise, there is cross constituency dissent, and just this fact alone should have all alarm bells ringing.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 10, 2015, at 21:13, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
All, as Mathieu indicated, we understand the concerns, take them very seriously and are working on suggestions to best move forward. Please give us a bit of time to assess the situation.
Thanks, Thomas
Am 10.04.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
I am less concerned with (and also less surprised by) the current acceleration in the CCWG's work.
However, if the group does decide to triage its work, I suggest we look at solutions other than simply extending the timeline. Specifically, I suggest the following:
*Split Work Stream 1 into 2 parts*:
- WS1A: Items that are required by the CWG-IANA in order to present a complete proposal -- i.e., clear and necessary dependencies. - WS1B: Items that the CCWG believes must be in place prior to the transition, but which are not "clear and necessary dependencies" of the CWG-IANA proposal.
WS1A really needs to stay on the current timeframe. This work is intertwined and interdependent with the CWG. Without it, there is a very significant risk that the CWG's work product will be perceived as so incomplete that it will be difficult for some groups to give reasonable comments. Under this proposal, the Draft Report on the 21st would be limited to the WS1A items.
WS1B would then be put to the side while WS1A is completed for the Draft Proposal. It would then be worked on immediately after the proposal goes out. It could then be the subject of a separate draft report to come out a few (or more than a few) weeks hence.
This would lighten the load and allow us to focus on fewer moving parts, while still meeting the timeline with the most time-sensitive part of our deliverable.
I look forward to comments on this proposed solution.
Greg Shatan
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@dotafrica.org> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
We also support concerns raised by our colleagues regarding our rather aggressive working schedule and agree with Brazil and Denmark that it may defeat the purpose of inclusiveness. Particularly taking into consideration that some stakeholders like governments have to reflect and consult widely to enable informed and meaningful participation.
We support the proposal to review the timelines and explore solutions to address and manage the various expectations.
Best regards
Alice Munyua
On 10/04/2015 19:28, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
+1 to Julias comment. There is a risk of losing too many people at this speed, where I feel some comments and positions might be lost down the road, just because their proponents are not able to follow each and every meeting.
Regards
Jorge Cancio
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 10.04.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <jukacz@erst.dk>>:
Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues,
Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work.
Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated.
Good weekend to you all,
Best,
Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <jukacz@erst.dk>www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/>
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] På vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
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> <langdonorr@gmail.com>> wrote: This is an *Excellent* suggestion in my humble opinion Ed...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr<http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>
On 10 April 2015 at 11:03, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> <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> <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> <%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2000> | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775<tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> <%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05<tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005> <%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005>roelof.meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> <roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl<http://www.sidn.nl> <http://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> <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> <el@lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733<tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> <%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing listccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> <ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org>http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email toccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org> <ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <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> <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<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All I Agree with Greg in principle with slight amendment to his suggestions as follows: WP1A which directly related to CWG should be given high priority compared to WO1B which related to transition. However, WP1 has now reached its momentum as many god and effective as well as useful works are being done . We need to keep , to some extent, such momentum. I disagree auth those complaint as the schedule is heavy . Yes it us heavy but we will loose institutional follow up discussion if we all of a sudden stop Working on WP1B activities Let us keep the momentum but concentrate on WP1A as described by Greg Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 10 Apr 2015, at 22:13, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
All, as Mathieu indicated, we understand the concerns, take them very seriously and are working on suggestions to best move forward. Please give us a bit of time to assess the situation.
Thanks, Thomas
Am 10.04.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
I am less concerned with (and also less surprised by) the current acceleration in the CCWG's work.
However, if the group does decide to triage its work, I suggest we look at solutions other than simply extending the timeline. Specifically, I suggest the following:
Split Work Stream 1 into 2 parts:
WS1A: Items that are required by the CWG-IANA in order to present a complete proposal -- i.e., clear and necessary dependencies. WS1B: Items that the CCWG believes must be in place prior to the transition, but which are not "clear and necessary dependencies" of the CWG-IANA proposal.
WS1A really needs to stay on the current timeframe. This work is intertwined and interdependent with the CWG. Without it, there is a very significant risk that the CWG's work product will be perceived as so incomplete that it will be difficult for some groups to give reasonable comments. Under this proposal, the Draft Report on the 21st would be limited to the WS1A items.
WS1B would then be put to the side while WS1A is completed for the Draft Proposal. It would then be worked on immediately after the proposal goes out. It could then be the subject of a separate draft report to come out a few (or more than a few) weeks hence.
This would lighten the load and allow us to focus on fewer moving parts, while still meeting the timeline with the most time-sensitive part of our deliverable.
I look forward to comments on this proposed solution.
Greg Shatan
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@dotafrica.org> wrote: Dear Colleagues,
We also support concerns raised by our colleagues regarding our rather aggressive working schedule and agree with Brazil and Denmark that it may defeat the purpose of inclusiveness. Particularly taking into consideration that some stakeholders like governments have to reflect and consult widely to enable informed and meaningful participation.
We support the proposal to review the timelines and explore solutions to address and manage the various expectations.
Best regards Alice Munyua
On 10/04/2015 19:28, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote: +1 to Julias comment. There is a risk of losing too many people at this speed, where I feel some comments and positions might be lost down the road, just because their proponents are not able to follow each and every meeting.
Regards
Jorge Cancio
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 10.04.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>:
Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues,
Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work.
Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated.
Good weekend to you all,
Best,
Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
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-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr<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<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<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 _______________________________________________ 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
Not intending to be cynical, but I wonder if enough of the work would go to WS1b to make up for the time we would spend on discussing what should be in WS1a and what in WS1b.. Best, Roelof From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> Date: vrijdag 10 april 2015 22:13 To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning All, as Mathieu indicated, we understand the concerns, take them very seriously and are working on suggestions to best move forward. Please give us a bit of time to assess the situation. Thanks, Thomas Am 10.04.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>: I am less concerned with (and also less surprised by) the current acceleration in the CCWG's work. However, if the group does decide to triage its work, I suggest we look at solutions other than simply extending the timeline. Specifically, I suggest the following: Split Work Stream 1 into 2 parts: * WS1A: Items that are required by the CWG-IANA in order to present a complete proposal -- i.e., clear and necessary dependencies. * WS1B: Items that the CCWG believes must be in place prior to the transition, but which are not "clear and necessary dependencies" of the CWG-IANA proposal. WS1A really needs to stay on the current timeframe. This work is intertwined and interdependent with the CWG. Without it, there is a very significant risk that the CWG's work product will be perceived as so incomplete that it will be difficult for some groups to give reasonable comments. Under this proposal, the Draft Report on the 21st would be limited to the WS1A items. WS1B would then be put to the side while WS1A is completed for the Draft Proposal. It would then be worked on immediately after the proposal goes out. It could then be the subject of a separate draft report to come out a few (or more than a few) weeks hence. This would lighten the load and allow us to focus on fewer moving parts, while still meeting the timeline with the most time-sensitive part of our deliverable. I look forward to comments on this proposed solution. Greg Shatan On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@dotafrica.org<mailto:alice@dotafrica.org>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, We also support concerns raised by our colleagues regarding our rather aggressive working schedule and agree with Brazil and Denmark that it may defeat the purpose of inclusiveness. Particularly taking into consideration that some stakeholders like governments have to reflect and consult widely to enable informed and meaningful participation. We support the proposal to review the timelines and explore solutions to address and manage the various expectations. Best regards Alice Munyua On 10/04/2015 19:28, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: +1 to Julias comment. There is a risk of losing too many people at this speed, where I feel some comments and positions might be lost down the road, just because their proponents are not able to follow each and every meeting. Regards Jorge Cancio Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 10.04.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>: Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues, Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work. Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated. Good weekend to you all, Best, Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000<tel:%2B45%203529%201000> Direct: +45 35291308<tel:%2B45%2035291308> E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/><http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk><http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning 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><mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com><mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> wrote: This is an *Excellent* suggestion in my humble opinion Ed... Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr<http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr><http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr><http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> On 10 April 2015 at 11:03, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net><mailto: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><mailto: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><tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2000> | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775<tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775><tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05<tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005><tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005>roelof.meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl><mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl><mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl<http://www.sidn.nl/><http://www.sidn.nl><http://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><mailto: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><mailto:el@lisse.NA><mailto:el@lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733<tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733><tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733><tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Roelof, you have a way with words :-)-O But, I am not sure the Co-Chairs are getting it. el On 2015-04-13 09:44 , Roelof Meijer wrote:
Not intending to be cynical, but I wonder if enough of the work would go to WS1b to make up for the time we would spend on discussing what should be in WS1a and what in WS1b..
Best,
Roelof [...] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQIVAwUBVSuDf5cFHaN5RT+rAQIkVg//Q5i3HUnbmIfLSU1GOEZ1lI4lQ92fJYUb pLmgu1qw+tL0JHeMAKiON7Bqz35QX6XmArU45Cjuxd7QsaHQ5aV9AK9eGM7f8Ml9 rQ6yU8muDesTu0AnNRZvDxF6msmnT5pxL+QjHfOsAiZdICfy7gLJEUsFjGz5KpGc oPueie2DpIzIplueFU9JUkuTlIfvClZRGR/bBYnWnqyd1OyP3ewzVvbFrCCfFWft YPDslwVscrBPFpeycqPCSaZ/FYAP/lGvd3uqv0FsuTSY+3aU1Nmv3xn3Kb7LibfI l+dYE6I32loXZsx7Lva4ueXtiL1EtGL+VJKP8YXIUTGqfF7MHWT4wJESRPodjAqK VQE8ZPWiiz8EVTKLcjFJ2HRXE4HBnJEh8f5+r8+XU52T6LcoqEQ563rDoBD2Bucs EP00HG1ASnucZ3zuz0GEYPRQCx5UWnwZK53E921nx5D0bHSUl35JnW0vCIdOY/hj OkA0Tm7whlo3dbOSDfPFxMg9pUJf7RCqYkiFYu/v9j6pELwlp/aQJ9mPCnQb3cwy LzmC/ue/OMxJPqv0xJ65z6YOob0hY7bdWT4BLdNPAD7C1Ak2Sw+/LvycgqQ7fDon NKqF3CKOK4FxbLj1EaSMxK3IlmyXcP0AOWo8QLD+en7BXbpaLRVvWePsG2WEcoLA WPQF6DuKUjc= =fnMG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I doubt that it will be all that difficult. It should be fairly clear what the CWG is relying on the CCWG to deliver in order to directly support the CWG's proposals. Furthermor, the CWG is commencing a 2-day high-intensity work period, with 3 2-hour calls per day. That, in itself, should help clarify the WS1A list, and the CCWG co-chairs have asked the CWG to take note of these "dependencies" as the work period unfolds, and to compile as specific a list of these as possible. Greg On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 4:51 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Roelof,
you have a way with words :-)-O
But, I am not sure the Co-Chairs are getting it.
el
On 2015-04-13 09:44 , Roelof Meijer wrote:
Not intending to be cynical, but I wonder if enough of the work would go to WS1b to make up for the time we would spend on discussing what should be in WS1a and what in WS1b..
Best,
Roelof [...] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQIVAwUBVSuDf5cFHaN5RT+rAQIkVg//Q5i3HUnbmIfLSU1GOEZ1lI4lQ92fJYUb pLmgu1qw+tL0JHeMAKiON7Bqz35QX6XmArU45Cjuxd7QsaHQ5aV9AK9eGM7f8Ml9 rQ6yU8muDesTu0AnNRZvDxF6msmnT5pxL+QjHfOsAiZdICfy7gLJEUsFjGz5KpGc oPueie2DpIzIplueFU9JUkuTlIfvClZRGR/bBYnWnqyd1OyP3ewzVvbFrCCfFWft YPDslwVscrBPFpeycqPCSaZ/FYAP/lGvd3uqv0FsuTSY+3aU1Nmv3xn3Kb7LibfI l+dYE6I32loXZsx7Lva4ueXtiL1EtGL+VJKP8YXIUTGqfF7MHWT4wJESRPodjAqK VQE8ZPWiiz8EVTKLcjFJ2HRXE4HBnJEh8f5+r8+XU52T6LcoqEQ563rDoBD2Bucs EP00HG1ASnucZ3zuz0GEYPRQCx5UWnwZK53E921nx5D0bHSUl35JnW0vCIdOY/hj OkA0Tm7whlo3dbOSDfPFxMg9pUJf7RCqYkiFYu/v9j6pELwlp/aQJ9mPCnQb3cwy LzmC/ue/OMxJPqv0xJ65z6YOob0hY7bdWT4BLdNPAD7C1Ak2Sw+/LvycgqQ7fDon NKqF3CKOK4FxbLj1EaSMxK3IlmyXcP0AOWo8QLD+en7BXbpaLRVvWePsG2WEcoLA WPQF6DuKUjc= =fnMG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Greg, never mind finding the time to just be on 3 calls a day (?!?!) how can one think any of this and the implications through? I could not... el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5c
On Apr 13, 2015, at 12:28, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I doubt that it will be all that difficult. It should be fairly clear what the CWG is relying on the CCWG to deliver in order to directly support the CWG's proposals. Furthermor, the CWG is commencing a 2-day high-intensity work period, with 3 2-hour calls per day. That, in itself, should help clarify the WS1A list, and the CCWG co-chairs have asked the CWG to take note of these "dependencies" as the work period unfolds, and to compile as specific a list of these as possible.
Greg
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 4:51 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Roelof,
you have a way with words :-)-O
But, I am not sure the Co-Chairs are getting it.
el
On 2015-04-13 09:44 , Roelof Meijer wrote:
Not intending to be cynical, but I wonder if enough of the work would go to WS1b to make up for the time we would spend on discussing what should be in WS1a and what in WS1b..
Best,
Roelof [...] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQIVAwUBVSuDf5cFHaN5RT+rAQIkVg//Q5i3HUnbmIfLSU1GOEZ1lI4lQ92fJYUb pLmgu1qw+tL0JHeMAKiON7Bqz35QX6XmArU45Cjuxd7QsaHQ5aV9AK9eGM7f8Ml9 rQ6yU8muDesTu0AnNRZvDxF6msmnT5pxL+QjHfOsAiZdICfy7gLJEUsFjGz5KpGc oPueie2DpIzIplueFU9JUkuTlIfvClZRGR/bBYnWnqyd1OyP3ewzVvbFrCCfFWft YPDslwVscrBPFpeycqPCSaZ/FYAP/lGvd3uqv0FsuTSY+3aU1Nmv3xn3Kb7LibfI l+dYE6I32loXZsx7Lva4ueXtiL1EtGL+VJKP8YXIUTGqfF7MHWT4wJESRPodjAqK VQE8ZPWiiz8EVTKLcjFJ2HRXE4HBnJEh8f5+r8+XU52T6LcoqEQ563rDoBD2Bucs EP00HG1ASnucZ3zuz0GEYPRQCx5UWnwZK53E921nx5D0bHSUl35JnW0vCIdOY/hj OkA0Tm7whlo3dbOSDfPFxMg9pUJf7RCqYkiFYu/v9j6pELwlp/aQJ9mPCnQb3cwy LzmC/ue/OMxJPqv0xJ65z6YOob0hY7bdWT4BLdNPAD7C1Ak2Sw+/LvycgqQ7fDon NKqF3CKOK4FxbLj1EaSMxK3IlmyXcP0AOWo8QLD+en7BXbpaLRVvWePsG2WEcoLA WPQF6DuKUjc= =fnMG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
It is good to see that my call has had effect. Or has it..? With a lot of respect to everyone working so hard, and especially to Jordan, but: From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: dinsdag 14 april 2015 00:25 To: "wp1@icann.org<mailto:wp1@icann.org>" <wp1@icann.org<mailto:wp1@icann.org>> Subject: [WP1] Our updated work programme this week (WP1 calls #10 and #11). Hi all To reiterate our updated work plan: We have scheduled two more calls that follow the CCWG call on 14 Apr at 12-14hUTC. They are as follows: 15 April - WP1 call #10 (21-23h UTC) 16 April - WP1 call #11 (19-21h UTC) - cannot be confirmed until the CCWG confirms it is cancelling its call in this window, but that should happen in about 16hrs from now) Which makes 4 calls this week, just for WP1 at times like 10.45pm-0.00pm, 01.00am-03.00am, 23.00pm-01.00am I’ll stop calling for attention for this, but just hope that it helps our co-chairs to „assess the situation” Best, Roelof From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> Date: vrijdag 10 april 2015 22:13 To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning All, as Mathieu indicated, we understand the concerns, take them very seriously and are working on suggestions to best move forward. Please give us a bit of time to assess the situation. Thanks, Thomas Am 10.04.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>: I am less concerned with (and also less surprised by) the current acceleration in the CCWG's work. However, if the group does decide to triage its work, I suggest we look at solutions other than simply extending the timeline. Specifically, I suggest the following: Split Work Stream 1 into 2 parts: * WS1A: Items that are required by the CWG-IANA in order to present a complete proposal -- i.e., clear and necessary dependencies. * WS1B: Items that the CCWG believes must be in place prior to the transition, but which are not "clear and necessary dependencies" of the CWG-IANA proposal. WS1A really needs to stay on the current timeframe. This work is intertwined and interdependent with the CWG. Without it, there is a very significant risk that the CWG's work product will be perceived as so incomplete that it will be difficult for some groups to give reasonable comments. Under this proposal, the Draft Report on the 21st would be limited to the WS1A items. WS1B would then be put to the side while WS1A is completed for the Draft Proposal. It would then be worked on immediately after the proposal goes out. It could then be the subject of a separate draft report to come out a few (or more than a few) weeks hence. This would lighten the load and allow us to focus on fewer moving parts, while still meeting the timeline with the most time-sensitive part of our deliverable. I look forward to comments on this proposed solution. Greg Shatan On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@dotafrica.org<mailto:alice@dotafrica.org>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, We also support concerns raised by our colleagues regarding our rather aggressive working schedule and agree with Brazil and Denmark that it may defeat the purpose of inclusiveness. Particularly taking into consideration that some stakeholders like governments have to reflect and consult widely to enable informed and meaningful participation. We support the proposal to review the timelines and explore solutions to address and manage the various expectations. Best regards Alice Munyua On 10/04/2015 19:28, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: +1 to Julias comment. There is a risk of losing too many people at this speed, where I feel some comments and positions might be lost down the road, just because their proponents are not able to follow each and every meeting. Regards Jorge Cancio Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 10.04.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>: Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues, Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work. Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated. Good weekend to you all, Best, Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000<tel:%2B45%203529%201000> Direct: +45 35291308<tel:%2B45%2035291308> E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/><http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk><http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning 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><mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com><mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> wrote: This is an *Excellent* suggestion in my humble opinion Ed... Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr<http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr><http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr><http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> On 10 April 2015 at 11:03, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net><mailto: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><mailto: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><tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2000> | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775<tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775><tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05<tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005><tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005>roelof.meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl><mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl><mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl<http://www.sidn.nl/><http://www.sidn.nl><http://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><mailto: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><mailto:el@lisse.NA><mailto:el@lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733<tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733><tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733><tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Roelof, all, we have assured you earlier that we are paying attention to this and have asked the group for a bit of time. We will address this issue in the upcoming call. Kind regards, Thomas
Am 14.04.2015 um 09:51 schrieb Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>:
It is good to see that my call has had effect. Or has it..? With a lot of respect to everyone working so hard, and especially to Jordan, but:
From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: dinsdag 14 april 2015 00:25 To: "wp1@icann.org <mailto:wp1@icann.org>" <wp1@icann.org <mailto:wp1@icann.org>> Subject: [WP1] Our updated work programme this week (WP1 calls #10 and #11).
Hi all
To reiterate our updated work plan:
We have scheduled two more calls that follow the CCWG call on 14 Apr at 12-14hUTC. They are as follows:
15 April - WP1 call #10 (21-23h UTC)
16 April - WP1 call #11 (19-21h UTC) - cannot be confirmed until the CCWG confirms it is cancelling its call in this window, but that should happen in about 16hrs from now)
Which makes 4 calls this week, just for WP1 at times like 10.45pm-0.00pm, 01.00am-03.00am, 23.00pm-01.00am
I’ll stop calling for attention for this, but just hope that it helps our co-chairs to „assess the situation”
Best,
Roelof
From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> Date: vrijdag 10 april 2015 22:13 To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
All, as Mathieu indicated, we understand the concerns, take them very seriously and are working on suggestions to best move forward. Please give us a bit of time to assess the situation.
Thanks, Thomas
Am 10.04.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>:
I am less concerned with (and also less surprised by) the current acceleration in the CCWG's work.
However, if the group does decide to triage its work, I suggest we look at solutions other than simply extending the timeline. Specifically, I suggest the following:
Split Work Stream 1 into 2 parts:
WS1A: Items that are required by the CWG-IANA in order to present a complete proposal -- i.e., clear and necessary dependencies. WS1B: Items that the CCWG believes must be in place prior to the transition, but which are not "clear and necessary dependencies" of the CWG-IANA proposal.
WS1A really needs to stay on the current timeframe. This work is intertwined and interdependent with the CWG. Without it, there is a very significant risk that the CWG's work product will be perceived as so incomplete that it will be difficult for some groups to give reasonable comments. Under this proposal, the Draft Report on the 21st would be limited to the WS1A items.
WS1B would then be put to the side while WS1A is completed for the Draft Proposal. It would then be worked on immediately after the proposal goes out. It could then be the subject of a separate draft report to come out a few (or more than a few) weeks hence.
This would lighten the load and allow us to focus on fewer moving parts, while still meeting the timeline with the most time-sensitive part of our deliverable.
I look forward to comments on this proposed solution.
Greg Shatan
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@dotafrica.org <mailto:alice@dotafrica.org>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
We also support concerns raised by our colleagues regarding our rather aggressive working schedule and agree with Brazil and Denmark that it may defeat the purpose of inclusiveness. Particularly taking into consideration that some stakeholders like governments have to reflect and consult widely to enable informed and meaningful participation.
We support the proposal to review the timelines and explore solutions to address and manage the various expectations.
Best regards Alice Munyua
On 10/04/2015 19:28, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
+1 to Julias comment. There is a risk of losing too many people at this speed, where I feel some comments and positions might be lost down the road, just because their proponents are not able to follow each and every meeting.
Regards
Jorge Cancio
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 10.04.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>:
Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues,
Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work.
Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated.
Good weekend to you all,
Best,
Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 <tel:%2B45%203529%201000> Direct: +45 35291308 <tel:%2B45%2035291308> E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/><http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/>
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] På vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
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><mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com> <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> wrote: This is an *Excellent* suggestion in my humble opinion Ed...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr><http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>
On 10 April 2015 at 11:03, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net><mailto: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><mailto: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> <tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2000> | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775<tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> <tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05<tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005> <tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005>roelof.meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl><mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> <mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/><http://www.sidn.nl> <http://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><mailto: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><mailto:el@lisse.NA> <mailto:el@lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 <tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733><tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> <tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org <mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org><mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> <mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org>http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity <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><mailto: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><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
--
*****************************
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><mailto: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><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Dear Co-Chairs, I'd rather have this done in writing, but the you can put this into a formal email after the discussion today. greetings, el On 2015-04-14 09:00, Thomas Rickert wrote:
Roelof, all, we have assured you earlier that we are paying attention to this and have asked the group for a bit of time. We will address this issue in the upcoming call.
Kind regards, Thomas [...]
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVLNQAAAoJEJcFHaN5RT+rxRQP/19mprn44bdKLWvgJCOp+56N xWa2ht6cxFfa5xkx9VzGMRebc30MPBPEOvN2r9uRrhBvjKIZxDkgvgcK6qT12tVG czEkBR/fq9rYK8IH/k61QhZLrqYO1c1RCVoVVBkc2OHiHa+ylgrNmohgyXxQjAcV RaHEXiliNaqzQaEj+/6w0cB2zr+kFS05tC3P+RdrNiFITp3lbkGgP5A41ntACudt ZvOZQBb03wlUL3ur42sQHuQa81vJm4LMr1MLFFbgl43gsEEqIgF0cB1cqaHI3t3u LxR4HIl9tELjcZYIUu5wnHjD5qFxdeZuFSIXYTQ5iRZeeyCyP4A4h3NtFF1raNnf 3oi15FeIIFHn89lZN6Cl5zJagPGaVljPQNbe7KDxQtRUUMk8CakapK0RX+A+GYGA nc+s/2p5zeTpYaHmZ3s1NHhXZbWJ+SSfHRvf208bntXgi5FCZ4ZQ9YEgHOWFDS/u LJtBgyub42T9yoRPZfl6zAGUguETXwI3CScC0W0lg1ns3t4IW2Usj1NBvQtQry2v qLTaGn2UALFgCRqT/ik8gJlzKB1b348A6fH+5R8hCP+H9fVF6O7012SxO1K74klb pycLPD2WVpyjT2ILVVhpMs4V+4N3902HJapdSWsTXUKw4DGKNy2QzjdT225auLC6 cLUOfrcjtfK8bLOLMey0 =bO6l -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi, Makes sense to me. I agree that some of the grander plans for rebuilding the ICANN governance structure may be difficult to sort out in the next few days. However, the actual required contents of WS1A may vary baside on whether CWG-IANA picks the fully internal model or the affiliated model. Until they make that decsion it may be hard to minimize the requirements for WS1a. Hopefully the CWG will be able to resolve this issue in its Monday/Tuesday intense meeting schedule. avri On 10-Apr-15 15:37, Greg Shatan wrote:
I am less concerned with (and also less surprised by) the current acceleration in the CCWG's work.
However, if the group does decide to triage its work, I suggest we look at solutions other than simply extending the timeline. Specifically, I suggest the following:
*Split Work Stream 1 into 2 parts*:
* WS1A: Items that are required by the CWG-IANA in order to present a complete proposal -- i.e., clear and necessary dependencies. * WS1B: Items that the CCWG believes must be in place prior to the transition, but which are not "clear and necessary dependencies" of the CWG-IANA proposal.
WS1A really needs to stay on the current timeframe. This work is intertwined and interdependent with the CWG. Without it, there is a very significant risk that the CWG's work product will be perceived as so incomplete that it will be difficult for some groups to give reasonable comments. Under this proposal, the Draft Report on the 21st would be limited to the WS1A items.
WS1B would then be put to the side while WS1A is completed for the Draft Proposal. It would then be worked on immediately after the proposal goes out. It could then be the subject of a separate draft report to come out a few (or more than a few) weeks hence.
This would lighten the load and allow us to focus on fewer moving parts, while still meeting the timeline with the most time-sensitive part of our deliverable.
I look forward to comments on this proposed solution.
Greg Shatan
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@dotafrica.org <mailto:alice@dotafrica.org>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
We also support concerns raised by our colleagues regarding our rather aggressive working schedule and agree with Brazil and Denmark that it may defeat the purpose of inclusiveness. Particularly taking into consideration that some stakeholders like governments have to reflect and consult widely to enable informed and meaningful participation.
We support the proposal to review the timelines and explore solutions to address and manage the various expectations.
Best regards
Alice Munyua
On 10/04/2015 19:28, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
+1 to Julias comment. There is a risk of losing too many people at this speed, where I feel some comments and positions might be lost down the road, just because their proponents are not able to follow each and every meeting.
Regards
Jorge Cancio
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 10.04.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>:
Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues,
Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work.
Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated.
Good weekend to you all,
Best,
Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 <tel:%2B45%203529%201000> Direct: +45 35291308 <tel:%2B45%2035291308> E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk><http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
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><mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com> <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> wrote: This is an *Excellent* suggestion in my humble opinion Ed...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr><http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>
On 10 April 2015 at 11:03, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net><mailto: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><mailto: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> <tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2000> | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775<tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> <tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05<tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005> <tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005> roelof.meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl><mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> <mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl><http://www.sidn.nl> <http://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><mailto: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><mailto:el@lisse.NA> <mailto:el@lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 <tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733><tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> <tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org <mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Who would define what is in WS1A? The CCWG or the CWG? J On Sunday, 12 April 2015, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Makes sense to me. I agree that some of the grander plans for rebuilding the ICANN governance structure may be difficult to sort out in the next few days.
However, the actual required contents of WS1A may vary baside on whether CWG-IANA picks the fully internal model or the affiliated model. Until they make that decsion it may be hard to minimize the requirements for WS1a.
Hopefully the CWG will be able to resolve this issue in its Monday/Tuesday intense meeting schedule.
avri
On 10-Apr-15 15:37, Greg Shatan wrote:
I am less concerned with (and also less surprised by) the current acceleration in the CCWG's work.
However, if the group does decide to triage its work, I suggest we look at solutions other than simply extending the timeline. Specifically, I suggest the following:
*Split Work Stream 1 into 2 parts*:
- WS1A: Items that are required by the CWG-IANA in order to present a complete proposal -- i.e., clear and necessary dependencies. - WS1B: Items that the CCWG believes must be in place prior to the transition, but which are not "clear and necessary dependencies" of the CWG-IANA proposal.
WS1A really needs to stay on the current timeframe. This work is intertwined and interdependent with the CWG. Without it, there is a very significant risk that the CWG's work product will be perceived as so incomplete that it will be difficult for some groups to give reasonable comments. Under this proposal, the Draft Report on the 21st would be limited to the WS1A items.
WS1B would then be put to the side while WS1A is completed for the Draft Proposal. It would then be worked on immediately after the proposal goes out. It could then be the subject of a separate draft report to come out a few (or more than a few) weeks hence.
This would lighten the load and allow us to focus on fewer moving parts, while still meeting the timeline with the most time-sensitive part of our deliverable.
I look forward to comments on this proposed solution.
Greg Shatan
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@dotafrica.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','alice@dotafrica.org');>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
We also support concerns raised by our colleagues regarding our rather aggressive working schedule and agree with Brazil and Denmark that it may defeat the purpose of inclusiveness. Particularly taking into consideration that some stakeholders like governments have to reflect and consult widely to enable informed and meaningful participation.
We support the proposal to review the timelines and explore solutions to address and manage the various expectations.
Best regards
Alice Munyua
On 10/04/2015 19:28, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch');> wrote:
+1 to Julias comment. There is a risk of losing too many people at this speed, where I feel some comments and positions might be lost down the road, just because their proponents are not able to follow each and every meeting.
Regards
Jorge Cancio
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 10.04.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jukacz@erst.dk');><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jukacz@erst.dk');>>:
Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues,
Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work.
Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated.
Good weekend to you all,
Best,
Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jukacz@erst.dk');><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jukacz@erst.dk');>www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>] På vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','langdonorr@gmail.com');><mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','langdonorr@gmail.com');>> wrote: This is an *Excellent* suggestion in my humble opinion Ed...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr<http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>
On 10 April 2015 at 11:03, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','egmorris1@toast.net');><mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl');><mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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> <%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2000> | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775<tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> <%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05<tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005> <%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005>roelof.meijer@sidn.nl <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','roelof.meijer@sidn.nl');><mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','roelof.meijer@sidn.nl');> | www.sidn.nl<http://www.sidn.nl> <http://www.sidn.nl> <http://www.sidn.nl/> <http://www.sidn.nl/>
On 08-04-15 14:15, "Dr Eberhard Lisse" <el@lisse.NA <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','el@lisse.NA');><mailto:el@lisse.NA> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','el@lisse.NA');><mailto:el@lisse.NA> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','el@lisse.NA');> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733<tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> <%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing listccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org');><mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org');>http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email toccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org');><mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org');>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mathieu.weill@afnic.fr');><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mathieu.weill@afnic.fr');>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
------------------------------ [image: Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
Hi, I believe that the CCWG has to define it based on an understanding of what CWG actually needs. We have chairs in the 2 groups who communicate among themselves to keep us aligned. And we have some participants in common between the groups. But most importantly, we have a legal advice that understands both what CWG needs and what the CCWG can do. avri On 11-Apr-15 18:50, Jordan Carter wrote:
Who would define what is in WS1A? The CCWG or the CWG?
J
On Sunday, 12 April 2015, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
Makes sense to me. I agree that some of the grander plans for rebuilding the ICANN governance structure may be difficult to sort out in the next few days.
However, the actual required contents of WS1A may vary baside on whether CWG-IANA picks the fully internal model or the affiliated model. Until they make that decsion it may be hard to minimize the requirements for WS1a.
Hopefully the CWG will be able to resolve this issue in its Monday/Tuesday intense meeting schedule.
avri
On 10-Apr-15 15:37, Greg Shatan wrote:
I am less concerned with (and also less surprised by) the current acceleration in the CCWG's work.
However, if the group does decide to triage its work, I suggest we look at solutions other than simply extending the timeline. Specifically, I suggest the following:
*Split Work Stream 1 into 2 parts*:
* WS1A: Items that are required by the CWG-IANA in order to present a complete proposal -- i.e., clear and necessary dependencies. * WS1B: Items that the CCWG believes must be in place prior to the transition, but which are not "clear and necessary dependencies" of the CWG-IANA proposal.
WS1A really needs to stay on the current timeframe. This work is intertwined and interdependent with the CWG. Without it, there is a very significant risk that the CWG's work product will be perceived as so incomplete that it will be difficult for some groups to give reasonable comments. Under this proposal, the Draft Report on the 21st would be limited to the WS1A items.
WS1B would then be put to the side while WS1A is completed for the Draft Proposal. It would then be worked on immediately after the proposal goes out. It could then be the subject of a separate draft report to come out a few (or more than a few) weeks hence.
This would lighten the load and allow us to focus on fewer moving parts, while still meeting the timeline with the most time-sensitive part of our deliverable.
I look forward to comments on this proposed solution.
Greg Shatan
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@dotafrica.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','alice@dotafrica.org');>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
We also support concerns raised by our colleagues regarding our rather aggressive working schedule and agree with Brazil and Denmark that it may defeat the purpose of inclusiveness. Particularly taking into consideration that some stakeholders like governments have to reflect and consult widely to enable informed and meaningful participation.
We support the proposal to review the timelines and explore solutions to address and manage the various expectations.
Best regards
Alice Munyua
On 10/04/2015 19:28, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch');> wrote:
+1 to Julias comment. There is a risk of losing too many people at this speed, where I feel some comments and positions might be lost down the road, just because their proponents are not able to follow each and every meeting.
Regards
Jorge Cancio
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 10.04.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jukacz@erst.dk');><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jukacz@erst.dk');>>:
Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues,
Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work.
Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated.
Good weekend to you all,
Best,
Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 <tel:%2B45%203529%201000> Direct: +45 35291308 <tel:%2B45%2035291308> E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jukacz@erst.dk');><mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jukacz@erst.dk');> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk><http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>] På vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community@icann.org');> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','langdonorr@gmail.com');><mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','langdonorr@gmail.com');>> wrote: This is an *Excellent* suggestion in my humble opinion Ed...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr><http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>
On 10 April 2015 at 11:03, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','egmorris1@toast.net');><mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl');><mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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> <tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2000> | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775<tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> <tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05<tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005> <tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005> roelof.meijer@sidn.nl <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','roelof.meijer@sidn.nl');><mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','roelof.meijer@sidn.nl');> | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl><http://www.sidn.nl> <http://www.sidn.nl> <http://www.sidn.nl/> <http://www.sidn.nl/>
On 08-04-15 14:15, "Dr Eberhard Lisse" <el@lisse.NA <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','el@lisse.NA');><mailto:el@lisse.NA> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','el@lisse.NA');><mailto:el@lisse.NA> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','el@lisse.NA');> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 <tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733><tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> <tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org');><mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org');><mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org');>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mathieu.weill@afnic.fr');><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mathieu.weill@afnic.fr');>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
I don't think the decision of what goes into WS1A can be or needs to be a unilateral decision of either WG. The chairs of the two WGs have been coordinating, and I believe that one of the key items of coordination has been to identify "dependencies"; i.e., those aspects of the CCWG's work where the CWG is depending on the CCWG to deliver a particular piece of the puzzle.f That said, I'm not sure I can point to a particular document or list where these dependencies are explicitly identified. That doesn't mean the list doesn't exist. If it does, I would love to be pointed toward it! Greg On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Who would define what is in WS1A? The CCWG or the CWG?
J
On Sunday, 12 April 2015, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Makes sense to me. I agree that some of the grander plans for rebuilding the ICANN governance structure may be difficult to sort out in the next few days.
However, the actual required contents of WS1A may vary baside on whether CWG-IANA picks the fully internal model or the affiliated model. Until they make that decsion it may be hard to minimize the requirements for WS1a.
Hopefully the CWG will be able to resolve this issue in its Monday/Tuesday intense meeting schedule.
avri
On 10-Apr-15 15:37, Greg Shatan wrote:
I am less concerned with (and also less surprised by) the current acceleration in the CCWG's work.
However, if the group does decide to triage its work, I suggest we look at solutions other than simply extending the timeline. Specifically, I suggest the following:
*Split Work Stream 1 into 2 parts*:
- WS1A: Items that are required by the CWG-IANA in order to present a complete proposal -- i.e., clear and necessary dependencies. - WS1B: Items that the CCWG believes must be in place prior to the transition, but which are not "clear and necessary dependencies" of the CWG-IANA proposal.
WS1A really needs to stay on the current timeframe. This work is intertwined and interdependent with the CWG. Without it, there is a very significant risk that the CWG's work product will be perceived as so incomplete that it will be difficult for some groups to give reasonable comments. Under this proposal, the Draft Report on the 21st would be limited to the WS1A items.
WS1B would then be put to the side while WS1A is completed for the Draft Proposal. It would then be worked on immediately after the proposal goes out. It could then be the subject of a separate draft report to come out a few (or more than a few) weeks hence.
This would lighten the load and allow us to focus on fewer moving parts, while still meeting the timeline with the most time-sensitive part of our deliverable.
I look forward to comments on this proposed solution.
Greg Shatan
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@dotafrica.org> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
We also support concerns raised by our colleagues regarding our rather aggressive working schedule and agree with Brazil and Denmark that it may defeat the purpose of inclusiveness. Particularly taking into consideration that some stakeholders like governments have to reflect and consult widely to enable informed and meaningful participation.
We support the proposal to review the timelines and explore solutions to address and manage the various expectations.
Best regards
Alice Munyua
On 10/04/2015 19:28, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
+1 to Julias comment. There is a risk of losing too many people at this speed, where I feel some comments and positions might be lost down the road, just because their proponents are not able to follow each and every meeting.
Regards
Jorge Cancio
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 10.04.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>:
Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues,
Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work.
Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated.
Good weekend to you all,
Best,
Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
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-Orr ... (CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr<http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> <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> <%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2000> | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775<tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> <%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05<tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005> <%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> <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> <%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing listccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org>http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email toccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-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
--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://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 listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
------------------------------ [image: Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, Does not need to be unilateral, but in the end: CCWG is reponsible for ICANN accountabilty CWG is repsonsible for IANA accountabilty. Of course they should be coordinated. That is in our requirements. avri On 11-Apr-15 19:00, Greg Shatan wrote:
I don't think the decision of what goes into WS1A can be or needs to be a unilateral decision of either WG. The chairs of the two WGs have been coordinating, and I believe that one of the key items of coordination has been to identify "dependencies"; i.e., those aspects of the CCWG's work where the CWG is depending on the CCWG to deliver a particular piece of the puzzle.f
That said, I'm not sure I can point to a particular document or list where these dependencies are explicitly identified. That doesn't mean the list doesn't exist. If it does, I would love to be pointed toward it!
Greg
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
Who would define what is in WS1A? The CCWG or the CWG?
J
On Sunday, 12 April 2015, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
Makes sense to me. I agree that some of the grander plans for rebuilding the ICANN governance structure may be difficult to sort out in the next few days.
However, the actual required contents of WS1A may vary baside on whether CWG-IANA picks the fully internal model or the affiliated model. Until they make that decsion it may be hard to minimize the requirements for WS1a.
Hopefully the CWG will be able to resolve this issue in its Monday/Tuesday intense meeting schedule.
avri
On 10-Apr-15 15:37, Greg Shatan wrote:
I am less concerned with (and also less surprised by) the current acceleration in the CCWG's work.
However, if the group does decide to triage its work, I suggest we look at solutions other than simply extending the timeline. Specifically, I suggest the following:
*Split Work Stream 1 into 2 parts*:
* WS1A: Items that are required by the CWG-IANA in order to present a complete proposal -- i.e., clear and necessary dependencies. * WS1B: Items that the CCWG believes must be in place prior to the transition, but which are not "clear and necessary dependencies" of the CWG-IANA proposal.
WS1A really needs to stay on the current timeframe. This work is intertwined and interdependent with the CWG. Without it, there is a very significant risk that the CWG's work product will be perceived as so incomplete that it will be difficult for some groups to give reasonable comments. Under this proposal, the Draft Report on the 21st would be limited to the WS1A items.
WS1B would then be put to the side while WS1A is completed for the Draft Proposal. It would then be worked on immediately after the proposal goes out. It could then be the subject of a separate draft report to come out a few (or more than a few) weeks hence.
This would lighten the load and allow us to focus on fewer moving parts, while still meeting the timeline with the most time-sensitive part of our deliverable.
I look forward to comments on this proposed solution.
Greg Shatan
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@dotafrica.org> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
We also support concerns raised by our colleagues regarding our rather aggressive working schedule and agree with Brazil and Denmark that it may defeat the purpose of inclusiveness. Particularly taking into consideration that some stakeholders like governments have to reflect and consult widely to enable informed and meaningful participation.
We support the proposal to review the timelines and explore solutions to address and manage the various expectations.
Best regards
Alice Munyua
On 10/04/2015 19:28, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
+1 to Julias comment. There is a risk of losing too many people at this speed, where I feel some comments and positions might be lost down the road, just because their proponents are not able to follow each and every meeting.
Regards
Jorge Cancio
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 10.04.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>:
Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues,
Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work.
Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated.
Good weekend to you all,
Best,
Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 <tel:%2B45%203529%201000> Direct: +45 35291308 <tel:%2B45%2035291308> E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk><http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
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-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr><http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> <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> <tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2000> | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775<tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> <tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05<tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005> <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> <http://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><tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> <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<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 _______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Dear Co-Chairs, IANA is a function, not an entity. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 12, 2015, at 00:04, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Does not need to be unilateral, but in the end:
CCWG is reponsible for ICANN accountabilty CWG is repsonsible for IANA accountabilty.
Of course they should be coordinated. That is in our requirements.
avri
On 11-Apr-15 19:00, Greg Shatan wrote: I don't think the decision of what goes into WS1A can be or needs to be a unilateral decision of either WG. The chairs of the two WGs have been coordinating, and I believe that one of the key items of coordination has been to identify "dependencies"; i.e., those aspects of the CCWG's work where the CWG is depending on the CCWG to deliver a particular piece of the puzzle.f
That said, I'm not sure I can point to a particular document or list where these dependencies are explicitly identified. That doesn't mean the list doesn't exist. If it does, I would love to be pointed toward it!
Greg
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote: Who would define what is in WS1A? The CCWG or the CWG?
J
On Sunday, 12 April 2015, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote: Hi,
Makes sense to me. I agree that some of the grander plans for rebuilding the ICANN governance structure may be difficult to sort out in the next few days.
However, the actual required contents of WS1A may vary baside on whether CWG-IANA picks the fully internal model or the affiliated model. Until they make that decsion it may be hard to minimize the requirements for WS1a.
Hopefully the CWG will be able to resolve this issue in its Monday/Tuesday intense meeting schedule.
avri
On 10-Apr-15 15:37, Greg Shatan wrote: I am less concerned with (and also less surprised by) the current acceleration in the CCWG's work.
However, if the group does decide to triage its work, I suggest we look at solutions other than simply extending the timeline. Specifically, I suggest the following:
Split Work Stream 1 into 2 parts:
WS1A: Items that are required by the CWG-IANA in order to present a complete proposal -- i.e., clear and necessary dependencies. WS1B: Items that the CCWG believes must be in place prior to the transition, but which are not "clear and necessary dependencies" of the CWG-IANA proposal.
WS1A really needs to stay on the current timeframe. This work is intertwined and interdependent with the CWG. Without it, there is a very significant risk that the CWG's work product will be perceived as so incomplete that it will be difficult for some groups to give reasonable comments. Under this proposal, the Draft Report on the 21st would be limited to the WS1A items.
WS1B would then be put to the side while WS1A is completed for the Draft Proposal. It would then be worked on immediately after the proposal goes out. It could then be the subject of a separate draft report to come out a few (or more than a few) weeks hence.
This would lighten the load and allow us to focus on fewer moving parts, while still meeting the timeline with the most time-sensitive part of our deliverable.
I look forward to comments on this proposed solution.
Greg Shatan
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@dotafrica.org> wrote: Dear Colleagues,
We also support concerns raised by our colleagues regarding our rather aggressive working schedule and agree with Brazil and Denmark that it may defeat the purpose of inclusiveness. Particularly taking into consideration that some stakeholders like governments have to reflect and consult widely to enable informed and meaningful participation.
We support the proposal to review the timelines and explore solutions to address and manage the various expectations.
Best regards Alice Munyua
On 10/04/2015 19:28, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote: > +1 to Julias comment. There is a risk of losing too many people at this speed, where I feel some comments and positions might be lost down the road, just because their proponents are not able to follow each and every meeting. > > Regards > > Jorge Cancio > > Von meinem iPhone gesendet > > Am 10.04.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>: > > Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues, > > Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work. > > Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated. > > Good weekend to you all, > > > Best, > > Julia > > > > Julia Katja Wolman > > DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY > > Dahlerups Pakhus > Langelinie Allé 17 > DK-2100 København Ø > Telephone: +45 3529 1000 > Direct: +45 35291308 > E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> > www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> > > MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH > > P Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > > Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Mathieu Weill > Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 > Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning > > 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-Orr ... (CLO) > > about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr<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<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<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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ 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. www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I support Greg's suggestion to work so that items required by the CWG-IANA(WS1A) meet the timeline to support CWG-IANA. In terms of which WG is responsible in making the final decision, I agree with Avri that CCWG is ultimately responsible to make the decision on what goes in WS1A. I would expect the reality would be closer to what Greg has described, that no single WG making a unilateral decision, with close coordination between the two WGs through the Chairs. I imagine it wouldn't be as complicated as it may sound, as we in the CCWG have identified the requirements, which we can confirm with CWG-IANA Chairs on requirements needed for their considerations in CWG-IANA, with various options on their table. In addition, I would like to join Julia in expressing it would be really helpful to have the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. I am in the same situation as other colleagues and I'm not attend all calls. However, I think this would help me keep up with the latest work and join the discussions online to follow up, if this is made available. (e.g., I am keeping track of WP1, Stress Test documents. It would be helpful if similar integrate document under work for public comments for WP2 could be shared, once it is ready) If this is shared and we are able to confirm the progress of the latest integrated document sometime this week on the wiki (and on the accountability-cross-community@icann.org ML as needed), this would allow me to make comments on the latest document of all areas to be covered before it will be published for public comments, even if I miss some calls. I'd like to thank the Chairs and rapporteurs of the subgroups for excellent work in considering issues raised within the group, and at the same time leading us to work effectively in moving forward. Thanks, Izumi On 2015/04/12 8:04, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
Does not need to be unilateral, but in the end:
CCWG is reponsible for ICANN accountabilty CWG is repsonsible for IANA accountabilty.
Of course they should be coordinated. That is in our requirements.
avri
On 11-Apr-15 19:00, Greg Shatan wrote:
I don't think the decision of what goes into WS1A can be or needs to be a unilateral decision of either WG. The chairs of the two WGs have been coordinating, and I believe that one of the key items of coordination has been to identify "dependencies"; i.e., those aspects of the CCWG's work where the CWG is depending on the CCWG to deliver a particular piece of the puzzle.f
That said, I'm not sure I can point to a particular document or list where these dependencies are explicitly identified. That doesn't mean the list doesn't exist. If it does, I would love to be pointed toward it!
Greg
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
Who would define what is in WS1A? The CCWG or the CWG?
J
On Sunday, 12 April 2015, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
Makes sense to me. I agree that some of the grander plans for rebuilding the ICANN governance structure may be difficult to sort out in the next few days.
However, the actual required contents of WS1A may vary baside on whether CWG-IANA picks the fully internal model or the affiliated model. Until they make that decsion it may be hard to minimize the requirements for WS1a.
Hopefully the CWG will be able to resolve this issue in its Monday/Tuesday intense meeting schedule.
avri
On 10-Apr-15 15:37, Greg Shatan wrote:
I am less concerned with (and also less surprised by) the current acceleration in the CCWG's work.
However, if the group does decide to triage its work, I suggest we look at solutions other than simply extending the timeline. Specifically, I suggest the following:
*Split Work Stream 1 into 2 parts*:
* WS1A: Items that are required by the CWG-IANA in order to present a complete proposal -- i.e., clear and necessary dependencies. * WS1B: Items that the CCWG believes must be in place prior to the transition, but which are not "clear and necessary dependencies" of the CWG-IANA proposal.
WS1A really needs to stay on the current timeframe. This work is intertwined and interdependent with the CWG. Without it, there is a very significant risk that the CWG's work product will be perceived as so incomplete that it will be difficult for some groups to give reasonable comments. Under this proposal, the Draft Report on the 21st would be limited to the WS1A items.
WS1B would then be put to the side while WS1A is completed for the Draft Proposal. It would then be worked on immediately after the proposal goes out. It could then be the subject of a separate draft report to come out a few (or more than a few) weeks hence.
This would lighten the load and allow us to focus on fewer moving parts, while still meeting the timeline with the most time-sensitive part of our deliverable.
I look forward to comments on this proposed solution.
Greg Shatan
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@dotafrica.org> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
We also support concerns raised by our colleagues regarding our rather aggressive working schedule and agree with Brazil and Denmark that it may defeat the purpose of inclusiveness. Particularly taking into consideration that some stakeholders like governments have to reflect and consult widely to enable informed and meaningful participation.
We support the proposal to review the timelines and explore solutions to address and manage the various expectations.
Best regards
Alice Munyua
On 10/04/2015 19:28, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
+1 to Julias comment. There is a risk of losing too many people at this speed, where I feel some comments and positions might be lost down the road, just because their proponents are not able to follow each and every meeting.
Regards
Jorge Cancio
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 10.04.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>:
Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues,
Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work.
Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated.
Good weekend to you all,
Best,
Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie All�� 17 DK-2100 K��benhavn �� Telephone: +45 3529 1000 <tel:%2B45%203529%201000> Direct: +45 35291308 <tel:%2B45%2035291308> E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk><http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] P�� vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
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 ��crit : 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-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr><http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> <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> <tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2000> | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775<tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> <tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05<tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005> <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> <http://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><tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> <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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur g��n��ral
T��l: +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 _______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Seems to me that some sort of objective measure can be used to determine whether the community has secured enough leverage to ensure its desires for WS2 will be realized. Jonathan Zuck President 202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck@actonline.org<mailto:jzuck@actonline.org> | Skype: jvzuck ACT | The App Association [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/twitter.png]<https://twitter.com/actonline> [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/fb.png]<https://www.facebook.com/actonline.org> [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/actonline.png]<http://actonline.org> ________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 6:50 PM To: avri@acm.org Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning Who would define what is in WS1A? The CCWG or the CWG? J On Sunday, 12 April 2015, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: Hi, Makes sense to me. I agree that some of the grander plans for rebuilding the ICANN governance structure may be difficult to sort out in the next few days. However, the actual required contents of WS1A may vary baside on whether CWG-IANA picks the fully internal model or the affiliated model. Until they make that decsion it may be hard to minimize the requirements for WS1a. Hopefully the CWG will be able to resolve this issue in its Monday/Tuesday intense meeting schedule. avri On 10-Apr-15 15:37, Greg Shatan wrote: I am less concerned with (and also less surprised by) the current acceleration in the CCWG's work. However, if the group does decide to triage its work, I suggest we look at solutions other than simply extending the timeline. Specifically, I suggest the following: Split Work Stream 1 into 2 parts: * WS1A: Items that are required by the CWG-IANA in order to present a complete proposal -- i.e., clear and necessary dependencies. * WS1B: Items that the CCWG believes must be in place prior to the transition, but which are not "clear and necessary dependencies" of the CWG-IANA proposal. WS1A really needs to stay on the current timeframe. This work is intertwined and interdependent with the CWG. Without it, there is a very significant risk that the CWG's work product will be perceived as so incomplete that it will be difficult for some groups to give reasonable comments. Under this proposal, the Draft Report on the 21st would be limited to the WS1A items. WS1B would then be put to the side while WS1A is completed for the Draft Proposal. It would then be worked on immediately after the proposal goes out. It could then be the subject of a separate draft report to come out a few (or more than a few) weeks hence. This would lighten the load and allow us to focus on fewer moving parts, while still meeting the timeline with the most time-sensitive part of our deliverable. I look forward to comments on this proposed solution. Greg Shatan On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@dotafrica.org> wrote: Dear Colleagues, We also support concerns raised by our colleagues regarding our rather aggressive working schedule and agree with Brazil and Denmark that it may defeat the purpose of inclusiveness. Particularly taking into consideration that some stakeholders like governments have to reflect and consult widely to enable informed and meaningful participation. We support the proposal to review the timelines and explore solutions to address and manage the various expectations. Best regards Alice Munyua On 10/04/2015 19:28, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote: +1 to Julias comment. There is a risk of losing too many people at this speed, where I feel some comments and positions might be lost down the road, just because their proponents are not able to follow each and every meeting. Regards Jorge Cancio Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 10.04.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>: Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues, Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work. Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated. Good weekend to you all, Best, Julia Julia Katja Wolman DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000<tel:%2B45%203529%201000> Direct: +45 35291308<tel:%2B45%2035291308> E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk><http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk><http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning 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-Orr ... (CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr<http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr><http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr><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><tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2000> | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775<tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775><tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05<tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005><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><http://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><tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733><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<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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ [Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/> -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
Dear All, Thanks for all good and thoughtful suggestion. WP1A ,if it could be categorized those actions directly related to CWG which in trun required to be finalized and sent to ICG, HAS THE FULL PRIORITY. In that case we need to a) first look at the output of CWG ,to the extent available, and b9 second read 8 examine carefully those elements of Sidley-Austin Memo dated 4 th April 2015 which specifically referred to the actions to be taken by CCWG and other areas which might need to be look at in terms of accoubntability for IANA TRANSITION. May we respectfully request Jordan and Becky to kindly either personnaly look at that Memo or request voluteer to do so. In that Membmo, some of the issues that we are examining Under WP1 and to some extent WP2 are included as actions required to be addressed. Moreover, there are terms and difitions that we have not used such as " Association" and "Group" ( Page 5 of the Memo) "Member Group" also described as ",Community Council" on page 10 of the Memo which CCWG made refernce to the later term RFP and CSC which required difinition as per Page 6 of Meno, In other words ,there are variety of actions which overlap with CCWG activities . Moreover, for certain activities/ actions several alternatives were provided each of which might have di9fferent degree of accountability for IANA Transition. However, actions on WP1B,as vcategorized by Grec; need to be pursued with lower priority but not totally stopped as we loose institutiional knowledge and continuity Regards Kavouss 2015-04-12 5:33 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org>:
Seems to me that some sort of objective measure can be used to determine whether the community has secured enough leverage to ensure its desires for WS2 will be realized.
Jonathan Zuck
*President*
202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck@actonline.org | Skype: jvzuck
ACT | The App Association
<https://twitter.com/actonline>
<https://www.facebook.com/actonline.org>
------------------------------ *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> *Sent:* Saturday, April 11, 2015 6:50 PM *To:* avri@acm.org *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
Who would define what is in WS1A? The CCWG or the CWG?
J
On Sunday, 12 April 2015, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Makes sense to me. I agree that some of the grander plans for rebuilding the ICANN governance structure may be difficult to sort out in the next few days.
However, the actual required contents of WS1A may vary baside on whether CWG-IANA picks the fully internal model or the affiliated model. Until they make that decsion it may be hard to minimize the requirements for WS1a.
Hopefully the CWG will be able to resolve this issue in its Monday/Tuesday intense meeting schedule.
avri
On 10-Apr-15 15:37, Greg Shatan wrote:
I am less concerned with (and also less surprised by) the current acceleration in the CCWG's work.
However, if the group does decide to triage its work, I suggest we look at solutions other than simply extending the timeline. Specifically, I suggest the following:
*Split Work Stream 1 into 2 parts*:
- WS1A: Items that are required by the CWG-IANA in order to present a complete proposal -- i.e., clear and necessary dependencies. - WS1B: Items that the CCWG believes must be in place prior to the transition, but which are not "clear and necessary dependencies" of the CWG-IANA proposal.
WS1A really needs to stay on the current timeframe. This work is intertwined and interdependent with the CWG. Without it, there is a very significant risk that the CWG's work product will be perceived as so incomplete that it will be difficult for some groups to give reasonable comments. Under this proposal, the Draft Report on the 21st would be limited to the WS1A items.
WS1B would then be put to the side while WS1A is completed for the Draft Proposal. It would then be worked on immediately after the proposal goes out. It could then be the subject of a separate draft report to come out a few (or more than a few) weeks hence.
This would lighten the load and allow us to focus on fewer moving parts, while still meeting the timeline with the most time-sensitive part of our deliverable.
I look forward to comments on this proposed solution.
Greg Shatan
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@dotafrica.org> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
We also support concerns raised by our colleagues regarding our rather aggressive working schedule and agree with Brazil and Denmark that it may defeat the purpose of inclusiveness. Particularly taking into consideration that some stakeholders like governments have to reflect and consult widely to enable informed and meaningful participation.
We support the proposal to review the timelines and explore solutions to address and manage the various expectations.
Best regards
Alice Munyua
On 10/04/2015 19:28, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
+1 to Julias comment. There is a risk of losing too many people at this speed, where I feel some comments and positions might be lost down the road, just because their proponents are not able to follow each and every meeting.
Regards
Jorge Cancio
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 10.04.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>:
Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues,
Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work.
Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated.
Good weekend to you all,
Best,
Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 Direct: +45 35291308 E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
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-Orr ... (CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr<http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> <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> <%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2000> | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775<tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> <%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05<tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005> <%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> <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> <%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing listccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org>http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email toccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-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
--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://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 listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
------------------------------ [image: Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear all, I fully agree that items connected to CWG should be our priority. Regards, Athina On 12/04/15 09:35, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All, Thanks for all good and thoughtful suggestion. WP1A ,if it could be categorized those actions directly related to CWG which in trun required to be finalized and sent to ICG, HAS THE FULL PRIORITY. In that case we need to a) first look at the output of CWG ,to the extent available, and b9 second read 8 examine carefully those elements of Sidley-Austin Memo dated 4 th April 2015 which specifically referred to the actions to be taken by CCWG and other areas which might need to be look at in terms of accoubntability for IANA TRANSITION. May we respectfully request Jordan and Becky to kindly either personnaly look at that Memo or request voluteer to do so. In that Membmo, some of the issues that we are examining Under WP1 and to some extent WP2 are included as actions required to be addressed. Moreover, there are terms and difitions that we have not used such as " Association" and "Group" ( Page 5 of the Memo) "Member Group" also described as ",Community Council" on page 10 of the Memo which CCWG made refernce to the later term RFP and CSC which required difinition as per Page 6 of Meno, In other words ,there are variety of actions which overlap with CCWG activities . Moreover, for certain activities/ actions several alternatives were provided each of which might have di9fferent degree of accountability for IANA Transition. However, actions on WP1B,as vcategorized by Grec; need to be pursued with lower priority but not totally stopped as we loose institutiional knowledge and continuity Regards Kavouss
2015-04-12 5:33 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org <mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>>:
Seems to me that some sort of objective measure can be used to determine whether the community has secured enough leverage to ensure its desires for WS2 will be realized.
Jonathan Zuck
/President/
202-331-2130 X 101 <tel:202-331-2130%20X%20101> | jzuck@actonline.org <mailto:jzuck@actonline.org> | Skype: jvzuck
ACT | The App Association
<https://twitter.com/actonline>
<https://www.facebook.com/actonline.org>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 11, 2015 6:50 PM *To:* avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
Who would define what is in WS1A? The CCWG or the CWG?
J
On Sunday, 12 April 2015, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
Makes sense to me. I agree that some of the grander plans for rebuilding the ICANN governance structure may be difficult to sort out in the next few days.
However, the actual required contents of WS1A may vary baside on whether CWG-IANA picks the fully internal model or the affiliated model. Until they make that decsion it may be hard to minimize the requirements for WS1a.
Hopefully the CWG will be able to resolve this issue in its Monday/Tuesday intense meeting schedule.
avri
On 10-Apr-15 15:37, Greg Shatan wrote:
I am less concerned with (and also less surprised by) the current acceleration in the CCWG's work.
However, if the group does decide to triage its work, I suggest we look at solutions other than simply extending the timeline. Specifically, I suggest the following:
*Split Work Stream 1 into 2 parts*:
* WS1A: Items that are required by the CWG-IANA in order to present a complete proposal -- i.e., clear and necessary dependencies. * WS1B: Items that the CCWG believes must be in place prior to the transition, but which are not "clear and necessary dependencies" of the CWG-IANA proposal.
WS1A really needs to stay on the current timeframe. This work is intertwined and interdependent with the CWG. Without it, there is a very significant risk that the CWG's work product will be perceived as so incomplete that it will be difficult for some groups to give reasonable comments. Under this proposal, the Draft Report on the 21st would be limited to the WS1A items.
WS1B would then be put to the side while WS1A is completed for the Draft Proposal. It would then be worked on immediately after the proposal goes out. It could then be the subject of a separate draft report to come out a few (or more than a few) weeks hence.
This would lighten the load and allow us to focus on fewer moving parts, while still meeting the timeline with the most time-sensitive part of our deliverable.
I look forward to comments on this proposed solution.
Greg Shatan
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@dotafrica.org> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
We also support concerns raised by our colleagues regarding our rather aggressive working schedule and agree with Brazil and Denmark that it may defeat the purpose of inclusiveness. Particularly taking into consideration that some stakeholders like governments have to reflect and consult widely to enable informed and meaningful participation.
We support the proposal to review the timelines and explore solutions to address and manage the various expectations.
Best regards
Alice Munyua
On 10/04/2015 19:28, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:
+1 to Julias comment. There is a risk of losing too many people at this speed, where I feel some comments and positions might be lost down the road, just because their proponents are not able to follow each and every meeting.
Regards
Jorge Cancio
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 10.04.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk>>:
Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues,
Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work and commitment to this important work.
Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday 14 April. This would be much appreciated.
Good weekend to you all,
Best,
Julia
Julia Katja Wolman
DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Dahlerups Pakhus Langelinie Allé 17 DK-2100 København Ø Telephone: +45 3529 1000 <tel:%2B45%203529%201000> Direct: +45 35291308 <tel:%2B45%2035291308> E-mail: jukacz@erst.dk<mailto:jukacz@erst.dk> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk><http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk> <http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk>
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Mathieu Weill Sendt: 10. april 2015 13:50 Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
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-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr><http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> <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> <tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2000> | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775<tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> <tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05<tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005> <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> <http://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><tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> <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<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 _______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (17)
-
Adebunmi AKINBO -
Alice Munyua -
Athina Fragkouli -
Avri Doria -
Dr Eberhard Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
-
Greg Shatan -
Izumi Okutani -
Jonathan Zuck -
Jordan Carter -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Julia Katja Wolman -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva -
Roelof Meijer -
Seun Ojedeji -
Thomas Rickert