Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Boating in January. Was: Work plan in January
Chris, Nigel, Let me get this clear: you guys can¹t participate in the calls in January because you¹re both on a boat trip? And Nigel wants to abandon the boat because Chris is in too? I can understand that, but would have expected it to be the other way around (not meaning the boat abandoning Nigel) Cheers, Roelof On 30-12-15 13:03, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Nigel Roberts" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
I'm very personally in the same boat.
I have attempted to add some value to the process, but in view of the nature (probably by design) of the proposed work-plan, I'm on the point of abandoning all but the most superficial of participation.
I'm sure others are in this boat with me ...
On 30/12/15 11:28, Chris Disspain wrote:
Hi Mathieu,
Thanks for this. Do you have a proposed topic agenda yet. I won¹t be able to make all the calls (and I expect others will be in the same boat) so it would helpful to have an overarching agenda for the calls as soon as possible. Apologies if this has been sent already and I have missed it.
Cheers,
Chris
On 30 Dec 2015, at 20:50 , Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Dear Paul, All,
Some of you have raised concerns about the work plan and the decision to schedule two calls a week, announced in my 24th December email.
Participants to our meeting #73 will remember that this issue was discussed during that call (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56986612). Key take away was the need for plenary discussions rather than multiplying subgroups.
While we certainly recognize the different views expressed about the timeline for delivering our final report, we are also trying to organize our calls in a manner that enables inclusive and informed debate about the comments received. 24 hours of calls in January "only" represent two hours of discussions per recommendation (leaving aside other types of issues that we dedicate time on during our calls). Two hours to fully understand concerns and find a way forward that is acceptable to all.
We hope that, by using a topic based agenda and providing a thorough analysis of the comments received ahead of the call, we can make the best use of everyone's time during these calls, so that they can remain driven by the willingness to understand each of the concerns in good faith and find common ground, as we have demonstrated in the past that our group can do.
If needed and desired within the group, we might have to rely on intensive days (possibly on a week end) as some of you suggested, but we are aware of the challenges of such an approach and would like to avoid that as much as possible.
As a follow up to the discussion that took place during our meeting #73, we will put these proposals for discussion during our next meeting, on January 5th, and look forward to your further contributions and suggestions.
Best regards, Leon, Thomas & Mathieu _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Bruce, Please find the following citations from the Board's comments (just as few examples) on CCWG 3d proposals see belows *I**ntroductory Part * “*The Board will have to consider whether its concerns were addressed and * *whether the final recommendations (including the specifics within those recommendations) are in the global public interest” * Recommendation 1 Part A “With regard to Paragraph 55, bullet 4, on the community involvement in defining the public interest, the Board supports that the development of a definition of the “global public interest” should involve the full community, including the Board. That is aligned with the work that is already underway and consistent with the strategic plan. The language suggested by the CCWG for the Articles of Incorporation should be modified, however, to reflect that once developed, the organization will be guided by a clear definition of global public interest. The suggestion that “global public interest” should be left to “interpretation” could lead to unpredictable and conflicting results, and the Board sees an important role in helping to define the global public interest as it relates to ICANN’s Mission” “ PART C *To reinforce the importance of the concerns raised above, should the Board’s comments not be directly addressed, the Board would have to consider, as specified in the 16 October 2014 resolution, whether it believes the specifics of the recommendation meet the global public interest * * Recommendation 5 “the Board would have to consider, as specified in the 16 October 2014 resolution, whether it believes this recommendation meets the public interest and whether there would be a need to initiate a formal dialogue with the CCWG over the proposed edits to the Mission Statement. The Board’s concerns could be addressed in other ways”. Recommendation 7 “*To reinforce the importance of the concerns raised above, should the Board’s comments not be directly addressed, the Board would have to consider, as specified in the 16 October 2014 resolution, whether it believes the specifics of this recommendation meet the global public interest and whether there would be a need to initiate a formal dialogue with the CCWG over the timing of addressing the human rights issue. Set forth here is a proposal that would address the Board’s concerns. **The Board’s concerns could be addressed in other ways*. ““ Recommendation 12 *Include the principles that were included in the Board’s October 2014 resolution on consideration of Work Stream 1 efforts, including: a requirement for consensus recommendations; dialogue if the Board believes that any of the recommendations * * are not in the global public interest; requirement **that a 2/3 vote of the Board is required to reject any recommendation after consultation; and agreement that the Board will not change the consensus recommendations on its own. * In these Examples the Board expressed its desire to change, revise, modify or replace certain parts of a given Recommendations* .* However, it made an ULTIMATUM that, if such changes, modifications, replacement and ... are not accepted ,it WILL REJECT THESE TEXTS ON THE GROPUND THAT THEY ARE INCONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTERTESTS ? Since the board is not sure what would be the interpretation of public interest see below “Global public interest” should be left to “interpretation” could lead to unpredictable and conflicting results, and the Board sees an important role in helping to define the global public interest as it relates to ICANN’s Mission” How ,on the one hand clearly specifies that there is no clear and agreed definition for “GPI” and .on the other hand makes a recourse to the undefined definition and intimidate that should the CCWG does accept Board’s suggestion it will VETO THEM on the ground that they are inconsistent with “GPI”? May you please clarify the matter? Kavouss 2015-12-30 14:44 GMT+01:00 Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>:
Chris, Nigel,
Let me get this clear: you guys can¹t participate in the calls in January because you¹re both on a boat trip?
And Nigel wants to abandon the boat because Chris is in too? I can understand that, but would have expected it to be the other way around (not meaning the boat abandoning Nigel)
Cheers,
Roelof
On 30-12-15 13:03, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Nigel Roberts" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
I'm very personally in the same boat.
I have attempted to add some value to the process, but in view of the nature (probably by design) of the proposed work-plan, I'm on the point of abandoning all but the most superficial of participation.
I'm sure others are in this boat with me ...
On 30/12/15 11:28, Chris Disspain wrote:
Hi Mathieu,
Thanks for this. Do you have a proposed topic agenda yet. I won¹t be able to make all the calls (and I expect others will be in the same boat) so it would helpful to have an overarching agenda for the calls as soon as possible. Apologies if this has been sent already and I have missed it.
Cheers,
Chris
On 30 Dec 2015, at 20:50 , Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Dear Paul, All,
Some of you have raised concerns about the work plan and the decision to schedule two calls a week, announced in my 24th December email.
Participants to our meeting #73 will remember that this issue was discussed during that call (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56986612). Key take away was the need for plenary discussions rather than multiplying subgroups.
While we certainly recognize the different views expressed about the timeline for delivering our final report, we are also trying to organize our calls in a manner that enables inclusive and informed debate about the comments received. 24 hours of calls in January "only" represent two hours of discussions per recommendation (leaving aside other types of issues that we dedicate time on during our calls). Two hours to fully understand concerns and find a way forward that is acceptable to all.
We hope that, by using a topic based agenda and providing a thorough analysis of the comments received ahead of the call, we can make the best use of everyone's time during these calls, so that they can remain driven by the willingness to understand each of the concerns in good faith and find common ground, as we have demonstrated in the past that our group can do.
If needed and desired within the group, we might have to rely on intensive days (possibly on a week end) as some of you suggested, but we are aware of the challenges of such an approach and would like to avoid that as much as possible.
As a follow up to the discussion that took place during our meeting #73, we will put these proposals for discussion during our next meeting, on January 5th, and look forward to your further contributions and suggestions.
Best regards, Leon, Thomas & Mathieu _______________________________________________ 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
Hello Kavouss,
In these Examples the Board expressed its desire to change, revise, modify or replace certain parts of a given Recommendations .
However, it made an ULTIMATUM that, if such changes, modifications, replacement and ... are not accepted ,it WILL REJECT THESE TEXTS ON THE GROPUND THAT THEY ARE INCONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTERTESTS ?
Actually we have raised concerns and suggested a possible solution to each concern. We also noted that "The Board's concerns could be addressed in other ways." We have highlighted a few areas, as you have noted, where we had strong concerns and we hope that these concerns will be addressed. We are prepared to actively engage with the CCWG to come up with solutions to the concerns that are acceptable to the CCWG.
“Global public interest” should be left to “interpretation” could lead to unpredictable and conflicting results, and the Board sees an important role in helping to define the global public interest as it relates to ICANN’s Mission”
As I noted in a previous post, the Board supports a process that is in ICANN's strategic plan to further define the global public interest in the narrow context of ICANN's mission. For now we are making reference to how the global public interest is stated in our Articles of Incorporation. ICANN is a public benefit organization, and it is the Board's role to ensure that changes to its rules of operation continue to allow the organization to perform the public benefit as defined in its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. Ie promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv). Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Bruce Thanks Happy New Year Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Jan 2016, at 08:50, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Kavouss,
In these Examples the Board expressed its desire to change, revise, modify or replace certain parts of a given Recommendations .
However, it made an ULTIMATUM that, if such changes, modifications, replacement and ... are not accepted ,it WILL REJECT THESE TEXTS ON THE GROPUND THAT THEY ARE INCONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTERTESTS ?
Actually we have raised concerns and suggested a possible solution to each concern. We also noted that "The Board's concerns could be addressed in other ways."
We have highlighted a few areas, as you have noted, where we had strong concerns and we hope that these concerns will be addressed.
We are prepared to actively engage with the CCWG to come up with solutions to the concerns that are acceptable to the CCWG.
“Global public interest” should be left to “interpretation” could lead to unpredictable and conflicting results, and the Board sees an important role in helping to define the global public interest as it relates to ICANN’s Mission”
As I noted in a previous post, the Board supports a process that is in ICANN's strategic plan to further define the global public interest in the narrow context of ICANN's mission.
For now we are making reference to how the global public interest is stated in our Articles of Incorporation. ICANN is a public benefit organization, and it is the Board's role to ensure that changes to its rules of operation continue to allow the organization to perform the public benefit as defined in its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws.
Ie promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by
(i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet;
(ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space;
(iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system;
(iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and
(v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv).
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
If Nigel is in the same boat as me then he has clearly stowed away. 😀 Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo@auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator
On 31 Dec 2015, at 00:44, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
Chris, Nigel,
Let me get this clear: you guys can¹t participate in the calls in January because you¹re both on a boat trip?
And Nigel wants to abandon the boat because Chris is in too? I can understand that, but would have expected it to be the other way around (not meaning the boat abandoning Nigel)
Cheers,
Roelof
On 30-12-15 13:03, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Nigel Roberts" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
I'm very personally in the same boat.
I have attempted to add some value to the process, but in view of the nature (probably by design) of the proposed work-plan, I'm on the point of abandoning all but the most superficial of participation.
I'm sure others are in this boat with me ...
On 30/12/15 11:28, Chris Disspain wrote: Hi Mathieu,
Thanks for this. Do you have a proposed topic agenda yet. I won¹t be able to make all the calls (and I expect others will be in the same boat) so it would helpful to have an overarching agenda for the calls as soon as possible. Apologies if this has been sent already and I have missed it.
Cheers,
Chris
On 30 Dec 2015, at 20:50 , Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Dear Paul, All,
Some of you have raised concerns about the work plan and the decision to schedule two calls a week, announced in my 24th December email.
Participants to our meeting #73 will remember that this issue was discussed during that call (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56986612). Key take away was the need for plenary discussions rather than multiplying subgroups.
While we certainly recognize the different views expressed about the timeline for delivering our final report, we are also trying to organize our calls in a manner that enables inclusive and informed debate about the comments received. 24 hours of calls in January "only" represent two hours of discussions per recommendation (leaving aside other types of issues that we dedicate time on during our calls). Two hours to fully understand concerns and find a way forward that is acceptable to all.
We hope that, by using a topic based agenda and providing a thorough analysis of the comments received ahead of the call, we can make the best use of everyone's time during these calls, so that they can remain driven by the willingness to understand each of the concerns in good faith and find common ground, as we have demonstrated in the past that our group can do.
If needed and desired within the group, we might have to rely on intensive days (possibly on a week end) as some of you suggested, but we are aware of the challenges of such an approach and would like to avoid that as much as possible.
As a follow up to the discussion that took place during our meeting #73, we will put these proposals for discussion during our next meeting, on January 5th, and look forward to your further contributions and suggestions.
Best regards, Leon, Thomas & Mathieu _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Chris and Nigel A boat is useful when inundated (check the BBC news). With best wishes to all for a happy, healthy, prosperous and successful New Year. Mark Mark Carvell Global Internet Governance Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk tel +44 (0) 20 7211 6062 On 30 December 2015 at 22:30, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
If Nigel is in the same boat as me then he has clearly stowed away. 😀
Cheers,
Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo@auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au
auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator
On 31 Dec 2015, at 00:44, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
Chris, Nigel,
Let me get this clear: you guys can¹t participate in the calls in January because you¹re both on a boat trip?
And Nigel wants to abandon the boat because Chris is in too? I can understand that, but would have expected it to be the other way around (not meaning the boat abandoning Nigel)
Cheers,
Roelof
On 30-12-15 13:03, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Nigel Roberts" < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
I'm very personally in the same boat.
I have attempted to add some value to the process, but in view of the nature (probably by design) of the proposed work-plan, I'm on the point of abandoning all but the most superficial of participation.
I'm sure others are in this boat with me ...
On 30/12/15 11:28, Chris Disspain wrote: Hi Mathieu,
Thanks for this. Do you have a proposed topic agenda yet. I won¹t be able to make all the calls (and I expect others will be in the same boat) so it would helpful to have an overarching agenda for the calls as soon as possible. Apologies if this has been sent already and I have missed it.
Cheers,
Chris
On 30 Dec 2015, at 20:50 , Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss, Dear Paul, All,
Some of you have raised concerns about the work plan and the decision to schedule two calls a week, announced in my 24th December email.
Participants to our meeting #73 will remember that this issue was discussed during that call (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56986612). Key take away was the need for plenary discussions rather than multiplying subgroups.
While we certainly recognize the different views expressed about the timeline for delivering our final report, we are also trying to organize our calls in a manner that enables inclusive and informed debate about the comments received. 24 hours of calls in January "only" represent two hours of discussions per recommendation (leaving aside other types of issues that we dedicate time on during our calls). Two hours to fully understand concerns and find a way forward that is acceptable to all.
We hope that, by using a topic based agenda and providing a thorough analysis of the comments received ahead of the call, we can make the best use of everyone's time during these calls, so that they can remain driven by the willingness to understand each of the concerns in good faith and find common ground, as we have demonstrated in the past that our group can do.
If needed and desired within the group, we might have to rely on intensive days (possibly on a week end) as some of you suggested, but we are aware of the challenges of such an approach and would like to avoid that as much as possible.
As a follow up to the discussion that took place during our meeting #73, we will put these proposals for discussion during our next meeting, on January 5th, and look forward to your further contributions and suggestions.
Best regards, Leon, Thomas & Mathieu _______________________________________________ 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
Unless the boart is full (and I don't mean it in a historic context) and doesn't have WiFi. el On 2015-12-31 11:28 , Mark Carvell wrote:
Dear Chris and Nigel
A boat is useful when inundated (check the BBC news).
With best wishes to all for a happy, healthy, prosperous and successful New Year.
Mark
Mark Carvell [...]
On 30 December 2015 at 22:30, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote:
If Nigel is in the same boat as me then he has clearly stowed away. 😀
Cheers,
Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer [...]
> On 31 Dec 2015, at 00:44, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote: > > Chris, Nigel, > > Let me get this clear: you guys can¹t participate in the > calls in January because you¹re both on a boat trip? > > And Nigel wants to abandon the boat because Chris is in too? > I can understand that, but would have expected it to be the > other way around (not meaning the boat abandoning Nigel) > > Cheers, > > Roelof
[...]
Eberhard: Unless the boart is full (and I don't mean it in a historic context)and doesn't have WiFi. Wolfgang: Did you mean the "board"? Happy New Year to everybody Wolfgang
s/boart/boat/ :-)-O el On 2015-12-31 13:22 , "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
Eberhard: Unless the boart is full (and I don't mean it in a historic context)and doesn't have WiFi.
Wolfgang: Did you mean the "board"?
Happy New Year to everybody
Wolfgang
participants (7)
-
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" -
Bruce Tonkin -
Chris Disspain -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Mark Carvell -
Roelof Meijer