Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal
Resending this to the right list. Sorry for cross-posting and confusion. Best regards, León
Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
De: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Asunto: Kavouss alternative proposal Fecha: 26 de septiembre de 2015 9:04:13 GMT-7 Para: ccwg-internet-governance@icann.org
Dear all,
This is the alternative proposal to which Kavous spoke. I am circulating this per his request.
Best regards,
León
PDF please. On 2015-09-26 09:08 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Resending this to the right list.
Sorry for cross-posting and confusion.
Best regards,
León
Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
*De: *León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> *Asunto: **Kavouss alternative proposal* *Fecha: *26 de septiembre de 2015 9:04:13 GMT-7 *Para: *ccwg-internet-governance@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance@icann.org>
Dear all,
This is the alternative proposal to which Kavous spoke. I am circulating this per his request.
Best regards,
León
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
here is the PDF of Kavouss' suggestion. Jordan On 26 September 2015 at 09:08, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Resending this to the right list.
Sorry for cross-posting and confusion.
Best regards,
León
Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
*De: *León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> *Asunto: **Kavouss alternative proposal* *Fecha: *26 de septiembre de 2015 9:04:13 GMT-7 *Para: *ccwg-internet-governance@icann.org
Dear all,
This is the alternative proposal to which Kavous spoke. I am circulating this per his request.
Best regards,
León
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *
Dear All There is community mechanism through standing Panel Pls kindly read the text more carefully Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Sep 2015, at 09:32, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you,
in short that means, there will be no Community Mechanism.
el
On 2015-09-26 09:13 , Jordan Carter wrote: here is the PDF of Kavouss' suggestion.
Jordan [...]
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
But it means we would not have a membership model no?, which would be a huge change. -James On 26/09/2015 17:43, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All There is community mechanism through standing Panel Pls kindly read the text more carefully Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Sep 2015, at 09:32, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you,
in short that means, there will be no Community Mechanism.
el
On 2015-09-26 09:13 , Jordan Carter wrote: here is the PDF of Kavouss' suggestion.
Jordan [...]
_______________________________________________ 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
Sometimes you should "just say no." The community membership model is the core of what the community needs to actually enforce its interests ... Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 12:46 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal But it means we would not have a membership model no?, which would be a huge change. -James On 26/09/2015 17:43, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All There is community mechanism through standing Panel Pls kindly read the text more carefully Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Sep 2015, at 09:32, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you,
in short that means, there will be no Community Mechanism.
el
On 2015-09-26 09:13 , Jordan Carter wrote: here is the PDF of Kavouss' suggestion.
Jordan [...]
_______________________________________________ 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
Without membership, no enforceability. And without that, no real accountability Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW. Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Original Message From: Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 1:31 PM To: 'James Gannon'; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; 'Dr Eberhard W Lisse' Cc: 'Lisse Eberhard'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal Sometimes you should "just say no." The community membership model is the core of what the community needs to actually enforce its interests ... Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 12:46 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal But it means we would not have a membership model no?, which would be a huge change. -James On 26/09/2015 17:43, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All There is community mechanism through standing Panel Pls kindly read the text more carefully Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Sep 2015, at 09:32, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you,
in short that means, there will be no Community Mechanism.
el
On 2015-09-26 09:13 , Jordan Carter wrote: here is the PDF of Kavouss' suggestion.
Jordan [...]
_______________________________________________ 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 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15
It might be the case that a non-membership model could be created that was acceptable and achieve consensus. However there is a fundamental difference in CA law between a member and a no-member org, so it's a major decision. The first draft CCWG proposal, sent for public consultation, proposed to change ICANN to a membership model. The "interim" model emerging out of BA was a potential, or "springing" membership model. The second CCWG proposal developed in Paris, and sent for a second public consultation was a membership model. In both consultations, while there were many questions, there was also general support for a membership model. This is not to say that the proposal eventually sent to the NTIA has to be a membership model, but there would seem to be a process problem in submitting a proposal to NTIA that was not a membership model, but was not vetted to the same extent that the first two proposals were. -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 12:52 PM To: 'James Gannon'; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; 'Dr Eberhard W Lisse' Cc: 'Lisse Eberhard'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal Sometimes you should "just say no." The community membership model is the core of what the community needs to actually enforce its interests ... Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 12:46 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal But it means we would not have a membership model no?, which would be a huge change. -James On 26/09/2015 17:43, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All There is community mechanism through standing Panel Pls kindly read the text more carefully Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Sep 2015, at 09:32, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you,
in short that means, there will be no Community Mechanism.
el
On 2015-09-26 09:13 , Jordan Carter wrote: here is the PDF of Kavouss' suggestion.
Jordan [...]
_______________________________________________ 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
In full agreement with Mikes points below. -James On 26/09/2015 18:44, "Chartier, Mike S" <mike.s.chartier@intel.com> wrote:
It might be the case that a non-membership model could be created that was acceptable and achieve consensus. However there is a fundamental difference in CA law between a member and a no-member org, so it's a major decision.
The first draft CCWG proposal, sent for public consultation, proposed to change ICANN to a membership model. The "interim" model emerging out of BA was a potential, or "springing" membership model. The second CCWG proposal developed in Paris, and sent for a second public consultation was a membership model. In both consultations, while there were many questions, there was also general support for a membership model.
This is not to say that the proposal eventually sent to the NTIA has to be a membership model, but there would seem to be a process problem in submitting a proposal to NTIA that was not a membership model, but was not vetted to the same extent that the first two proposals were.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 12:52 PM To: 'James Gannon'; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; 'Dr Eberhard W Lisse' Cc: 'Lisse Eberhard'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal
Sometimes you should "just say no."
The community membership model is the core of what the community needs to actually enforce its interests ...
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 12:46 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal
But it means we would not have a membership model no?, which would be a huge change.
-James
On 26/09/2015 17:43, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All There is community mechanism through standing Panel Pls kindly read the text more carefully Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Sep 2015, at 09:32, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you,
in short that means, there will be no Community Mechanism.
el
On 2015-09-26 09:13 , Jordan Carter wrote: here is the PDF of Kavouss' suggestion.
Jordan [...]
_______________________________________________ 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
Agree 100% Mike - very important points as to process. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@lrrlaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chartier, Mike S Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 10:44 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig; 'James Gannon'; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; 'Dr Eberhard W Lisse' Cc: 'Lisse Eberhard'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal It might be the case that a non-membership model could be created that was acceptable and achieve consensus. However there is a fundamental difference in CA law between a member and a no-member org, so it's a major decision. The first draft CCWG proposal, sent for public consultation, proposed to change ICANN to a membership model. The "interim" model emerging out of BA was a potential, or "springing" membership model. The second CCWG proposal developed in Paris, and sent for a second public consultation was a membership model. In both consultations, while there were many questions, there was also general support for a membership model. This is not to say that the proposal eventually sent to the NTIA has to be a membership model, but there would seem to be a process problem in submitting a proposal to NTIA that was not a membership model, but was not vetted to the same extent that the first two proposals were. -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 12:52 PM To: 'James Gannon'; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; 'Dr Eberhard W Lisse' Cc: 'Lisse Eberhard'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal Sometimes you should "just say no." The community membership model is the core of what the community needs to actually enforce its interests ... Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 12:46 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal But it means we would not have a membership model no?, which would be a huge change. -James On 26/09/2015 17:43, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All There is community mechanism through standing Panel Pls kindly read the text more carefully Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Sep 2015, at 09:32, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you,
in short that means, there will be no Community Mechanism.
el
On 2015-09-26 09:13 , Jordan Carter wrote: here is the PDF of Kavouss' suggestion.
Jordan [...]
_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
So in essence we have a situation where the path forward, if based on designator model, may require several steps backward to perform due diligence. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW. Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Original Message From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 3:03 PM To: 'Chartier, Mike S'; Paul Rosenzweig; 'James Gannon'; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; 'Dr Eberhard W Lisse' Cc: 'Lisse Eberhard'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal Agree 100% Mike - very important points as to process. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@lrrlaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chartier, Mike S Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 10:44 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig; 'James Gannon'; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; 'Dr Eberhard W Lisse' Cc: 'Lisse Eberhard'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal It might be the case that a non-membership model could be created that was acceptable and achieve consensus. However there is a fundamental difference in CA law between a member and a no-member org, so it's a major decision. The first draft CCWG proposal, sent for public consultation, proposed to change ICANN to a membership model. The "interim" model emerging out of BA was a potential, or "springing" membership model. The second CCWG proposal developed in Paris, and sent for a second public consultation was a membership model. In both consultations, while there were many questions, there was also general support for a membership model. This is not to say that the proposal eventually sent to the NTIA has to be a membership model, but there would seem to be a process problem in submitting a proposal to NTIA that was not a membership model, but was not vetted to the same extent that the first two proposals were. -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 12:52 PM To: 'James Gannon'; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; 'Dr Eberhard W Lisse' Cc: 'Lisse Eberhard'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal Sometimes you should "just say no." The community membership model is the core of what the community needs to actually enforce its interests ... Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 12:46 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal But it means we would not have a membership model no?, which would be a huge change. -James On 26/09/2015 17:43, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All There is community mechanism through standing Panel Pls kindly read the text more carefully Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Sep 2015, at 09:32, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you,
in short that means, there will be no Community Mechanism.
el
On 2015-09-26 09:13 , Jordan Carter wrote: here is the PDF of Kavouss' suggestion.
Jordan [...]
_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15
Some of the due diligence has already been done. But a third round ob public comments would almost certainly be in the cards. Greg On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
So in essence we have a situation where the path forward, if based on designator model, may require several steps backward to perform due diligence.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW. Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Original Message From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 3:03 PM To: 'Chartier, Mike S'; Paul Rosenzweig; 'James Gannon'; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; 'Dr Eberhard W Lisse' Cc: 'Lisse Eberhard'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal
Agree 100% Mike - very important points as to process. Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@lrrlaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chartier, Mike S Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 10:44 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig; 'James Gannon'; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; 'Dr Eberhard W Lisse' Cc: 'Lisse Eberhard'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal
It might be the case that a non-membership model could be created that was acceptable and achieve consensus. However there is a fundamental difference in CA law between a member and a no-member org, so it's a major decision.
The first draft CCWG proposal, sent for public consultation, proposed to change ICANN to a membership model. The "interim" model emerging out of BA was a potential, or "springing" membership model. The second CCWG proposal developed in Paris, and sent for a second public consultation was a membership model. In both consultations, while there were many questions, there was also general support for a membership model.
This is not to say that the proposal eventually sent to the NTIA has to be a membership model, but there would seem to be a process problem in submitting a proposal to NTIA that was not a membership model, but was not vetted to the same extent that the first two proposals were.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 12:52 PM To: 'James Gannon'; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; 'Dr Eberhard W Lisse' Cc: 'Lisse Eberhard'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal
Sometimes you should "just say no."
The community membership model is the core of what the community needs to actually enforce its interests ...
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 12:46 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal
But it means we would not have a membership model no?, which would be a huge change.
-James
On 26/09/2015 17:43, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All There is community mechanism through standing Panel Pls kindly read the text more carefully Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Sep 2015, at 09:32, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you,
in short that means, there will be no Community Mechanism.
el
On 2015-09-26 09:13 , Jordan Carter wrote: here is the PDF of Kavouss' suggestion.
Jordan [...]
_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
@James without making any preference on what have been shared, I think you seem to focus on the model and not necessarily the required community powers (which is the accountability enhancement). Membership is not a requirement for accountability and certainly its not a requirement by NTIA. What is a requirement is proof that ICANN would be more accountable post-transition (and I said ICANN because its include not just board/staff but also the community). So I suggest we approach this with a more open mind and focus on what is required and not what we want. Regards On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 9:45 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
But it means we would not have a membership model no?, which would be a huge change.
-James
On 26/09/2015 17:43, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All There is community mechanism through standing Panel Pls kindly read the text more carefully Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Sep 2015, at 09:32, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you,
in short that means, there will be no Community Mechanism.
el
On 2015-09-26 09:13 , Jordan Carter wrote: here is the PDF of Kavouss' suggestion.
Jordan [...]
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Some of us feel that membership is the only viable means to implement the level of accountability that we require. I have a more open mind than some people participating in these conversations and will be open to constructive dialogue, but not to being talked down to and being told that we need to change the fundamentals of our proposal because one stakeholder (Albeit an important one) has disagreed with the work and the outcome of the community process. And I’m getting a little tired of such points being repeated. -james From: Seun Ojedeji Date: Saturday 26 September 2015 18:03 To: James Gannon Cc: Kavouss Arasteh, Dr Eberhard W Lisse, Lisse Eberhard, Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal @James without making any preference on what have been shared, I think you seem to focus on the model and not necessarily the required community powers (which is the accountability enhancement). Membership is not a requirement for accountability and certainly its not a requirement by NTIA. What is a requirement is proof that ICANN would be more accountable post-transition (and I said ICANN because its include not just board/staff but also the community). So I suggest we approach this with a more open mind and focus on what is required and not what we want. Regards On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 9:45 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: But it means we would not have a membership model no?, which would be a huge change. -James On 26/09/2015 17:43, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All There is community mechanism through standing Panel Pls kindly read the text more carefully Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Sep 2015, at 09:32, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA>> wrote:
Thank you,
in short that means, there will be no Community Mechanism.
el
On 2015-09-26 09:13 , Jordan Carter wrote: here is the PDF of Kavouss' suggestion.
Jordan [...]
_______________________________________________ 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email:<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
If we are in a negotiation, we need to know that.... On Saturday, September 26, 2015, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Some of us feel that membership is the only viable means to implement the level of accountability that we require. I have a more open mind than some people participating in these conversations and will be open to constructive dialogue, but not to being talked down to and being told that we need to change the fundamentals of our proposal because one stakeholder (Albeit an important one) has disagreed with the work and the outcome of the community process. And I’m getting a little tired of such points being repeated.
-james
From: Seun Ojedeji Date: Saturday 26 September 2015 18:03 To: James Gannon Cc: Kavouss Arasteh, Dr Eberhard W Lisse, Lisse Eberhard, Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal
@James without making any preference on what have been shared, I think you seem to focus on the model and not necessarily the required community powers (which is the accountability enhancement).
Membership is not a requirement for accountability and certainly its not a requirement by NTIA. What is a requirement is proof that ICANN would be more accountable post-transition (and I said ICANN because its include not just board/staff but also the community).
So I suggest we approach this with a more open mind and focus on what is required and not what we want.
Regards
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 9:45 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','james@cyberinvasion.net');>> wrote:
But it means we would not have a membership model no?, which would be a huge change.
-James
On 26/09/2015 17:43, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');> on behalf of kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com');>> wrote:
Dear All There is community mechanism through standing Panel Pls kindly read the text more carefully Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Sep 2015, at 09:32, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','el@lisse.NA');>> wrote:
Thank you,
in short that means, there will be no Community Mechanism.
el
On 2015-09-26 09:13 , Jordan Carter wrote: here is the PDF of Kavouss' suggestion.
Jordan [...]
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535 **alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng');>*
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Ahh James – the Board is not a stakeholder. It is the representative of people with an actual stake in the matter – the SOs, the users, and the builders. Management is never a “stakeholder” in that sense of the word. :) Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 1:07 PM To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal Some of us feel that membership is the only viable means to implement the level of accountability that we require. I have a more open mind than some people participating in these conversations and will be open to constructive dialogue, but not to being talked down to and being told that we need to change the fundamentals of our proposal because one stakeholder (Albeit an important one) has disagreed with the work and the outcome of the community process. And I’m getting a little tired of such points being repeated. -james From: Seun Ojedeji Date: Saturday 26 September 2015 18:03 To: James Gannon Cc: Kavouss Arasteh, Dr Eberhard W Lisse, Lisse Eberhard, Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal @James without making any preference on what have been shared, I think you seem to focus on the model and not necessarily the required community powers (which is the accountability enhancement). Membership is not a requirement for accountability and certainly its not a requirement by NTIA. What is a requirement is proof that ICANN would be more accountable post-transition (and I said ICANN because its include not just board/staff but also the community). So I suggest we approach this with a more open mind and focus on what is required and not what we want. Regards On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 9:45 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net> > wrote: But it means we would not have a membership model no?, which would be a huge change. -James On 26/09/2015 17:43, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote:
Dear All There is community mechanism through standing Panel Pls kindly read the text more carefully Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Sep 2015, at 09:32, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA <mailto:el@lisse.NA> > wrote:
Thank you,
in short that means, there will be no Community Mechanism.
el
On 2015-09-26 09:13 , Jordan Carter wrote: here is the PDF of Kavouss' suggestion.
Jordan [...]
_______________________________________________ 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Dear Co-Chairs, I think I have read the proposal very carefully, hence my summary. If I were into ICANNnese (languagewise) I would "share my understanding" as this proposal imposes so many and high burdens to be met that the mechanism it proposes would never trigger. That said, I am, as ever, impressed by the skills displayed by the proposer :-)-O el On 2015-09-26 09:43 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All There is community mechanism through standing Panel Pls kindly read the text more carefully Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Sep 2015, at 09:32, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you,
in short that means, there will be no Community Mechanism.
el
On 2015-09-26 09:13 , Jordan Carter wrote: here is the PDF of Kavouss' suggestion.
Jordan [...]
Dare I say +1 to Dr. L? Perhaps a first for me! -- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android Saturday, 26 September 2015, 02:52PM -04:00 from Dr Eberhard W Lisse < el@lisse.NA> :
Dear Co-Chairs,
I think I have read the proposal very carefully, hence my summary.
If I were into ICANNnese (languagewise) I would "share my understanding" as this proposal imposes so many and high burdens to be met that the mechanism it proposes would never trigger.
That said, I am, as ever, impressed by the skills displayed by the proposer :-)-O
el
On 2015-09-26 09:43 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All There is community mechanism through standing Panel Pls kindly read the text more carefully Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Sep 2015, at 09:32, Dr Eberhard W Lisse < el@lisse.NA > wrote:
Thank you,
in short that means, there will be no Community Mechanism.
el
On 2015-09-26 09:13 , Jordan Carter wrote: here is the PDF of Kavouss' suggestion.
Jordan [...]
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (11)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Chartier, Mike S -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Greg Shatan -
James Gannon -
Jordan Carter -
Kavouss Arasteh -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Corwin -
Seun Ojedeji