Accountability work headed to Dublin - Fadi's October 11 e-mail to certain "Community Leaders"
Thanks Mike. Good question. Separately, I understand that Fadi has sent out something he calls a “communications tool” to an e-mail l list of certain “Community Leaders” with respect to what must be accomplished by the CCWG-ACCT in Dublin. It includes a revised version of the chart we were presented with in an earlier call – showing a version of what line items in the CCWG-ACCT process are agreed and what items are disagreed. Fadi is seeking input on the chart from those copied on the e-mail. My question would be – How were these “Community Leaders” selected to receive Fadi’s e-mail? In the interest of transparency, would the Co-Chairs please forward Fadi’s Sunday October 11 e-mail on this topic to the entire CCWG – ACCT for its consideration? Thank you, 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, October 10, 2015 5:58 PM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin How is this possibly clearer? Are you going to forward them promptly, or follow the Charter and the Resolution of 10/16/14? Those are two different paths.
On Oct 10, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Paul,
I will try to be clearer on the process for submission to the NTIA:
From: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter
"Submission Board Report
After receiving the notifications from all chartering organizations as described above, the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability shall, within 10 working days after receiving the last notification, submit to the Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors and Chairs of all the chartering organizations the CCWG-Accountability Board Report, which shall include at a minimum:
a) The (Supplemental) Proposal as adopted by the CCWG-Accountability; and
b) The notifications of the decisions from the chartering organizations
c) Documentation of the process that was followed, including, but not limited to documenting the process of building consensus within the CCWG-Accountability and public consultations."
The Board will then meet to consider the CCWG-Accountability Board Report, and decide what, if any, comments to submit with the report taking into account (a), (b), and (c) above.
From: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
"When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared with the community during the development of the proposals. "
The NTIA has its own decision processes with respect to their stewardship of the IANA function. I can’t comment on what their process will be.
Separately the Board will need to meet to consider the implementation of recommendations from the CCWG to change the organization and bylaws. Bylaws changes are made when there is community support and when the Board believes they are in the global public interest.
On 16 October 2014, in Los Angeles, the Board set out its process for considering the changes proposed in the CCWG-Accountability Board Report.
The process was based on similar processes used to accept policy recommendations from the supporting organizations (SOs) that exist in the bylaws today.
See agenda item 2(d): https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16- en#2.d
I hope that is clearer.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ 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.
+1 I also request that the Fadi email be forwarded. Ron
Anne, none of this Chehadé-Wafflling affects the CCWG, unless we let it. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 12 Oct 2015, at 23:55, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> wrote:
Thanks Mike. Good question.
Separately, I understand that Fadi has sent out something he calls a “communications tool” to an e-mail l list of certain “Community Leaders” with respect to what must be accomplished by the CCWG-ACCT in Dublin. It includes a revised version of the chart we were presented with in an earlier call – showing a version of what line items in the CCWG-ACCT process are agreed and what items are disagreed. Fadi is seeking input on the chart from those copied on the e-mail.
My question would be – How were these “Community Leaders” selected to receive Fadi’s e-mail? In the interest of transparency, would the Co-Chairs please forward Fadi’s Sunday October 11 e-mail on this topic to the entire CCWG – ACCT for its consideration? Thank you, Anne [...]
Anne, It's my understanding that the document attached to Fadi's email is being substantially revised, so I'm not sure of the efficacy of reviewing a document that is in the process of becoming obsolete. The "Community Leaders" in this instance are the chairs of the SO/AC/SG/C/RALOs. Greg On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> wrote:
Thanks Mike. Good question.
Separately, I understand that Fadi has sent out something he calls a “communications tool” to an e-mail l list of certain “Community Leaders” with respect to what must be accomplished by the CCWG-ACCT in Dublin. It includes a revised version of the chart we were presented with in an earlier call – showing a version of what line items in the CCWG-ACCT process are agreed and what items are disagreed. Fadi is seeking input on the chart from those copied on the e-mail.
My question would be – How were these “Community Leaders” selected to receive Fadi’s e-mail? In the interest of transparency, would the Co-Chairs please forward Fadi’s Sunday October 11 e-mail on this topic to the entire CCWG – ACCT for its consideration? Thank you, 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, October 10, 2015 5:58 PM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
How is this possibly clearer?
Are you going to forward them promptly, or follow the Charter and the Resolution of 10/16/14?
Those are two different paths.
On Oct 10, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Paul,
I will try to be clearer on the process for submission to the NTIA:
From: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter
"Submission Board Report
After receiving the notifications from all chartering organizations as described above, the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability shall, within 10 working days after receiving the last notification, submit to the Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors and Chairs of all the chartering organizations the CCWG-Accountability Board Report, which shall include at a minimum:
a) The (Supplemental) Proposal as adopted by the CCWG-Accountability; and
b) The notifications of the decisions from the chartering organizations
c) Documentation of the process that was followed, including, but not limited to documenting the process of building consensus within the CCWG-Accountability and public consultations."
The Board will then meet to consider the CCWG-Accountability Board Report, and decide what, if any, comments to submit with the report taking into account (a), (b), and (c) above.
From: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
"When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared with the community during the development of the proposals. "
The NTIA has its own decision processes with respect to their stewardship of the IANA function. I can’t comment on what their process will be.
Separately the Board will need to meet to consider the implementation of recommendations from the CCWG to change the organization and bylaws. Bylaws changes are made when there is community support and when the Board believes they are in the global public interest.
On 16 October 2014, in Los Angeles, the Board set out its process for considering the changes proposed in the CCWG-Accountability Board Report.
The process was based on similar processes used to accept policy recommendations from the supporting organizations (SOs) that exist in the bylaws today.
See agenda item 2(d): https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16- en#2.d
I hope that is clearer.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ 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
Do the community leaders plan on telling the rest of the working group when they receive such restricted-audience messages in future and what their contents are? Kieren On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Anne,
It's my understanding that the document attached to Fadi's email is being substantially revised, so I'm not sure of the efficacy of reviewing a document that is in the process of becoming obsolete.
The "Community Leaders" in this instance are the chairs of the SO/AC/SG/C/RALOs.
Greg
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com> wrote:
Thanks Mike. Good question.
Separately, I understand that Fadi has sent out something he calls a “communications tool” to an e-mail l list of certain “Community Leaders” with respect to what must be accomplished by the CCWG-ACCT in Dublin. It includes a revised version of the chart we were presented with in an earlier call – showing a version of what line items in the CCWG-ACCT process are agreed and what items are disagreed. Fadi is seeking input on the chart from those copied on the e-mail.
My question would be – How were these “Community Leaders” selected to receive Fadi’s e-mail? In the interest of transparency, would the Co-Chairs please forward Fadi’s Sunday October 11 e-mail on this topic to the entire CCWG – ACCT for its consideration? Thank you, 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, October 10, 2015 5:58 PM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
How is this possibly clearer?
Are you going to forward them promptly, or follow the Charter and the Resolution of 10/16/14?
Those are two different paths.
On Oct 10, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Paul,
I will try to be clearer on the process for submission to the NTIA:
From: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter
"Submission Board Report
After receiving the notifications from all chartering organizations as described above, the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability shall, within 10 working days after receiving the last notification, submit to the Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors and Chairs of all the chartering organizations the CCWG-Accountability Board Report, which shall include at a minimum:
a) The (Supplemental) Proposal as adopted by the CCWG-Accountability; and
b) The notifications of the decisions from the chartering organizations
c) Documentation of the process that was followed, including, but not limited to documenting the process of building consensus within the CCWG-Accountability and public consultations."
The Board will then meet to consider the CCWG-Accountability Board Report, and decide what, if any, comments to submit with the report taking into account (a), (b), and (c) above.
From: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
"When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared with the community during the development of the proposals. "
The NTIA has its own decision processes with respect to their stewardship of the IANA function. I can’t comment on what their process will be.
Separately the Board will need to meet to consider the implementation of recommendations from the CCWG to change the organization and bylaws. Bylaws changes are made when there is community support and when the Board believes they are in the global public interest.
On 16 October 2014, in Los Angeles, the Board set out its process for considering the changes proposed in the CCWG-Accountability Board Report.
The process was based on similar processes used to accept policy recommendations from the supporting organizations (SOs) that exist in the bylaws today.
See agenda item 2(d): https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16- en#2.d
I hope that is clearer.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (5)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Greg Shatan -
Kieren McCarthy -
Ron Baione