Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment
Hi, I disagree with the notion that the Board presents fact and the rest of the Community presents theory. Many in the other parts of this community have been involved in the ICANN bottom-up multistakeholder process for as long as the Board members. Some even longer with a greater degree of experience. And though our view is not the view from the privilege of Board perspective, it is probably just as validly based on that which is the case. The Board's views are important, and based on their ability to affect the results of the community's work have a special role in our considerations. But please lets not elevate their position to the one truth we must all recognize. avri On 28-Sep-15 11:38, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Ed I always respect your views but this time with a little bit if reluctance. Board, s views contain a great degree of valuable importance as it speaks for implementation of the idea whereas we purely were thinking and discussing of almost theory. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Sep 2015, at 15:26, avri doria <avri@ella.com <mailto:avri@ella.com>> wrote:
Hi,
Or we may have to realize that the Board's fear of the community and the FUD about what we might do, is so great that they will never be able to accept a membership model. The historical and continuing aversion of ICANN's Board and legal advisers to the notion of allowing the community to have any kind of membership may just be part of its nature and something they are incapable of 'blinking' about. It may be the threshold ceiling this experiment in bottom up multistakeholder process can never move beyond. ICANN may, by its very nature and history, never be able to become fully what it aspires to be recognized as.
It then may be up to the community to decide to take whatever crumbs of accountability we can get. One thing I am certain of, one way or another, ICANN will come out of this process changed. It will either continue to lead in developing a true multistakeholder model. Or it may just settle into a slow decline as another organization that never lived up to its promise.
avri
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> Date:09/28/2015 8:15 AM (GMT-05:00) To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.NET <mailto:directors@omadhina.NET>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment
Ed,
of course we must give special attention to the Board. Stare them in the face until they blink :-)-O
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 28 Sep 2015, at 06:27, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:
Kavouss,
I personally attach a very hight level of support to the Board,s comments which stem from 17 years of valuable experience. While I support and appreciate public comments but we should give special attention to the valuable comments from the Board and should not put those comments in the sane basket of any other comment received from individual .
I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. I give no greater weight to the comments of a member of the Board than I do to a comment from the least privileged amongst us. I give power to the idea, not to the person or the organisation making it.
Ed
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Avri You may agree that the Board submitted the results if its 17 years if implementation practices and experience whereas each of us have just expressed our individual experience . Let us not argue that but just agree that what the Board suggested stemmed from facts and figures in a more general than other facts and figures submitted by individuals convoluted and amalgamated in what CCWG suggested Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Sep 2015, at 18:31, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I disagree with the notion that the Board presents fact and the rest of the Community presents theory. Many in the other parts of this community have been involved in the ICANN bottom-up multistakeholder process for as long as the Board members. Some even longer with a greater degree of experience. And though our view is not the view from the privilege of Board perspective, it is probably just as validly based on that which is the case.
The Board's views are important, and based on their ability to affect the results of the community's work have a special role in our considerations. But please lets not elevate their position to the one truth we must all recognize.
avri
On 28-Sep-15 11:38, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Ed I always respect your views but this time with a little bit if reluctance. Board, s views contain a great degree of valuable importance as it speaks for implementation of the idea whereas we purely were thinking and discussing of almost theory. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Sep 2015, at 15:26, avri doria <avri@ella.com <mailto:avri@ella.com>> wrote:
Hi,
Or we may have to realize that the Board's fear of the community and the FUD about what we might do, is so great that they will never be able to accept a membership model. The historical and continuing aversion of ICANN's Board and legal advisers to the notion of allowing the community to have any kind of membership may just be part of its nature and something they are incapable of 'blinking' about. It may be the threshold ceiling this experiment in bottom up multistakeholder process can never move beyond. ICANN may, by its very nature and history, never be able to become fully what it aspires to be recognized as.
It then may be up to the community to decide to take whatever crumbs of accountability we can get. One thing I am certain of, one way or another, ICANN will come out of this process changed. It will either continue to lead in developing a true multistakeholder model. Or it may just settle into a slow decline as another organization that never lived up to its promise.
avri
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> Date:09/28/2015 8:15 AM (GMT-05:00) To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.NET <mailto:directors@omadhina.NET>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment
Ed,
of course we must give special attention to the Board. Stare them in the face until they blink :-)-O
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 28 Sep 2015, at 06:27, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:
Kavouss,
I personally attach a very hight level of support to the Board,s comments which stem from 17 years of valuable experience. While I support and appreciate public comments but we should give special attention to the valuable comments from the Board and should not put those comments in the sane basket of any other comment received from individual .
I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. I give no greater weight to the comments of a member of the Board than I do to a comment from the least privileged amongst us. I give power to the idea, not to the person or the organisation making it.
Ed
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I would prefer not to throw away the multistakeholder process in the name of the transition. I don’t know if I’m alone in that view but its certainly one I hold. -James On 28/09/2015 17:47, "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:
Avri You may agree that the Board submitted the results if its 17 years if implementation practices and experience whereas each of us have just expressed our individual experience . Let us not argue that but just agree that what the Board suggested stemmed from facts and figures in a more general than other facts and figures submitted by individuals convoluted and amalgamated in what CCWG suggested Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Sep 2015, at 18:31, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I disagree with the notion that the Board presents fact and the rest of the Community presents theory. Many in the other parts of this community have been involved in the ICANN bottom-up multistakeholder process for as long as the Board members. Some even longer with a greater degree of experience. And though our view is not the view from the privilege of Board perspective, it is probably just as validly based on that which is the case.
The Board's views are important, and based on their ability to affect the results of the community's work have a special role in our considerations. But please lets not elevate their position to the one truth we must all recognize.
avri
On 28-Sep-15 11:38, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Ed I always respect your views but this time with a little bit if reluctance. Board, s views contain a great degree of valuable importance as it speaks for implementation of the idea whereas we purely were thinking and discussing of almost theory. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Sep 2015, at 15:26, avri doria <avri@ella.com <mailto:avri@ella.com>> wrote:
Hi,
Or we may have to realize that the Board's fear of the community and the FUD about what we might do, is so great that they will never be able to accept a membership model. The historical and continuing aversion of ICANN's Board and legal advisers to the notion of allowing the community to have any kind of membership may just be part of its nature and something they are incapable of 'blinking' about. It may be the threshold ceiling this experiment in bottom up multistakeholder process can never move beyond. ICANN may, by its very nature and history, never be able to become fully what it aspires to be recognized as.
It then may be up to the community to decide to take whatever crumbs of accountability we can get. One thing I am certain of, one way or another, ICANN will come out of this process changed. It will either continue to lead in developing a true multistakeholder model. Or it may just settle into a slow decline as another organization that never lived up to its promise.
avri
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> Date:09/28/2015 8:15 AM (GMT-05:00) To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.NET <mailto:directors@omadhina.NET>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment
Ed,
of course we must give special attention to the Board. Stare them in the face until they blink :-)-O
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 28 Sep 2015, at 06:27, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:
Kavouss,
I personally attach a very hight level of support to the Board,s comments which stem from 17 years of valuable experience. While I support and appreciate public comments but we should give special attention to the valuable comments from the Board and should not put those comments in the sane basket of any other comment received from individual .
I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. I give no greater weight to the comments of a member of the Board than I do to a comment from the least privileged amongst us. I give power to the idea, not to the person or the organisation making it.
Ed
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 James Community has journeyed too far to hang its head ...we may be at a critical moment in the m' stakeholder process. RD On Sep 28, 2015 1:01 PM, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
I would prefer not to throw away the multistakeholder process in the name of the transition. I don’t know if I’m alone in that view but its certainly one I hold.
-James
On 28/09/2015 17:47, "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:
Avri You may agree that the Board submitted the results if its 17 years if implementation practices and experience whereas each of us have just expressed our individual experience . Let us not argue that but just agree that what the Board suggested stemmed from facts and figures in a more general than other facts and figures submitted by individuals convoluted and amalgamated in what CCWG suggested Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Sep 2015, at 18:31, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I disagree with the notion that the Board presents fact and the rest of the Community presents theory. Many in the other parts of this community have been involved in the ICANN bottom-up multistakeholder process for as long as the Board members. Some even longer with a greater degree of experience. And though our view is not the view from the privilege of Board perspective, it is probably just as validly based on that which is the case.
The Board's views are important, and based on their ability to affect the results of the community's work have a special role in our considerations. But please lets not elevate their position to the one truth we must all recognize.
avri
On 28-Sep-15 11:38, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Ed I always respect your views but this time with a little bit if reluctance. Board, s views contain a great degree of valuable importance as it speaks for implementation of the idea whereas we purely were thinking and discussing of almost theory. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Sep 2015, at 15:26, avri doria <avri@ella.com <mailto:avri@ella.com>> wrote:
Hi,
Or we may have to realize that the Board's fear of the community and the FUD about what we might do, is so great that they will never be able to accept a membership model. The historical and continuing aversion of ICANN's Board and legal advisers to the notion of allowing the community to have any kind of membership may just be part of its nature and something they are incapable of 'blinking' about. It may be the threshold ceiling this experiment in bottom up multistakeholder process can never move beyond. ICANN may, by its very nature and history, never be able to become fully what it aspires to be recognized as.
It then may be up to the community to decide to take whatever crumbs of accountability we can get. One thing I am certain of, one way or another, ICANN will come out of this process changed. It will either continue to lead in developing a true multistakeholder model. Or it may just settle into a slow decline as another organization that never lived up to its promise.
avri
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> Date:09/28/2015 8:15 AM (GMT-05:00) To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.NET <mailto:directors@omadhina.NET>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment
Ed,
of course we must give special attention to the Board. Stare them in the face until they blink :-)-O
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 28 Sep 2015, at 06:27, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:
Kavouss,
I personally attach a very hight level of support to the Board,s comments which stem from 17 years of valuable experience. While I support and appreciate public comments but we should give special attention to the valuable comments from the Board and should not put those comments in the sane basket of any other comment received from individual .
I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. I give no greater weight to the comments of a member of the Board than I do to a comment from the least privileged amongst us. I give power to the idea, not to the person or the organisation making it.
Ed
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
I certainly respect the experience and perspective of the Board. On the other hand, I am mindful of the fact that many participants in the CCWG have been laboring in this field for a lot longer than the average Board member – indeed from the inception. And, our views have been informed by extensive public comments. So the experience and perspective of the CCWG – both individual members and collectively – also deserves respect. We can’t view this as binary. We must carefully consider what’s best in all of the options on the table, understand what is do-able, and proceed from that point. I do not see how we could fulfill our obligations under the Charter by simply acceding to the Board’s position. Nor do I think that is what the Board is demanding – although I acknowledge the Board’s delivery sometime conveyed that impression. B From: Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com<mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, September 28, 2015 at 1:11 PM To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment +1 James Community has journeyed too far to hang its head ...we may be at a critical moment in the m' stakeholder process. RD On Sep 28, 2015 1:01 PM, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: I would prefer not to throw away the multistakeholder process in the name of the transition. I don’t know if I’m alone in that view but its certainly one I hold. -James On 28/09/2015 17:47, "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:
Avri You may agree that the Board submitted the results if its 17 years if implementation practices and experience whereas each of us have just expressed our individual experience . Let us not argue that but just agree that what the Board suggested stemmed from facts and figures in a more general than other facts and figures submitted by individuals convoluted and amalgamated in what CCWG suggested Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Sep 2015, at 18:31, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
I disagree with the notion that the Board presents fact and the rest of the Community presents theory. Many in the other parts of this community have been involved in the ICANN bottom-up multistakeholder process for as long as the Board members. Some even longer with a greater degree of experience. And though our view is not the view from the privilege of Board perspective, it is probably just as validly based on that which is the case.
The Board's views are important, and based on their ability to affect the results of the community's work have a special role in our considerations. But please lets not elevate their position to the one truth we must all recognize.
avri
On 28-Sep-15 11:38, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Ed I always respect your views but this time with a little bit if reluctance. Board, s views contain a great degree of valuable importance as it speaks for implementation of the idea whereas we purely were thinking and discussing of almost theory. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Sep 2015, at 15:26, avri doria <avri@ella.com<mailto:avri@ella.com> <mailto:avri@ella.com<mailto:avri@ella.com>>> wrote:
Hi,
Or we may have to realize that the Board's fear of the community and the FUD about what we might do, is so great that they will never be able to accept a membership model. The historical and continuing aversion of ICANN's Board and legal advisers to the notion of allowing the community to have any kind of membership may just be part of its nature and something they are incapable of 'blinking' about. It may be the threshold ceiling this experiment in bottom up multistakeholder process can never move beyond. ICANN may, by its very nature and history, never be able to become fully what it aspires to be recognized as.
It then may be up to the community to decide to take whatever crumbs of accountability we can get. One thing I am certain of, one way or another, ICANN will come out of this process changed. It will either continue to lead in developing a true multistakeholder model. Or it may just settle into a slow decline as another organization that never lived up to its promise.
avri
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com> <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>>> Date:09/28/2015 8:15 AM (GMT-05:00) To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.NET<mailto:directors@omadhina.NET> <mailto:directors@omadhina.NET<mailto:directors@omadhina.NET>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment
Ed,
of course we must give special attention to the Board. Stare them in the face until they blink :-)-O
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 28 Sep 2015, at 06:27, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>> wrote:
Kavouss,
I personally attach a very hight level of support to the Board,s comments which stem from 17 years of valuable experience. While I support and appreciate public comments but we should give special attention to the valuable comments from the Board and should not put those comments in the sane basket of any other comment received from individual .
I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. I give no greater weight to the comments of a member of the Board than I do to a comment from the least privileged amongst us. I give power to the idea, not to the person or the organisation making it.
Ed
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ZafcqlbrSgE4Bd9g3x12aZFbXdcCnbzhUqPK9_CgRa0&s=6sqOTKdEGThwLylpF-f8f81F0ZzUG2OQke29-vDbztw&e=>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ZafcqlbrSgE4Bd9g3x12aZFbXdcCnbzhUqPK9_CgRa0&s=6sqOTKdEGThwLylpF-f8f81F0ZzUG2OQke29-vDbztw&e=>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ZafcqlbrSgE4Bd9g3x12aZFbXdcCnbzhUqPK9_CgRa0&s=q9uHMjXcPTo0Md_Zw_otWCUhKM3U4yNucYSxVB5IahE&e=>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ZafcqlbrSgE4Bd9g3x12aZFbXdcCnbzhUqPK9_CgRa0&s=6sqOTKdEGThwLylpF-f8f81F0ZzUG2OQke29-vDbztw&e=>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ZafcqlbrSgE4Bd9g3x12aZFbXdcCnbzhUqPK9_CgRa0&s=6sqOTKdEGThwLylpF-f8f81F0ZzUG2OQke29-vDbztw&e=>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ZafcqlbrSgE4Bd9g3x12aZFbXdcCnbzhUqPK9_CgRa0&s=6sqOTKdEGThwLylpF-f8f81F0ZzUG2OQke29-vDbztw&e=>
There are many within the Board and the Community that have 17 years of experience with ICANN. Some are even former Board members. The current Board does not have 17 years of experience in doing anything, however, one might say that Jones Day has 17 years of experience in advising the Board in its dealings with the Community.... Greg On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
I certainly respect the experience and perspective of the Board. On the other hand, I am mindful of the fact that many participants in the CCWG have been laboring in this field for a lot longer than the average Board member – indeed from the inception. And, our views have been informed by extensive public comments. So the experience and perspective of the CCWG – both individual members and collectively – also deserves respect.
We can’t view this as binary. We must carefully consider what’s best in all of the options on the table, understand what is do-able, and proceed from that point. I do not see how we could fulfill our obligations under the Charter by simply acceding to the Board’s position. Nor do I think that is what the Board is demanding – although I acknowledge the Board’s delivery sometime conveyed that impression.
B
From: Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com> Date: Monday, September 28, 2015 at 1:11 PM To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, Accountability Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment
+1 James Community has journeyed too far to hang its head ...we may be at a critical moment in the m' stakeholder process. RD On Sep 28, 2015 1:01 PM, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
I would prefer not to throw away the multistakeholder process in the name of the transition. I don’t know if I’m alone in that view but its certainly one I hold.
-James
On 28/09/2015 17:47, "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:
Avri You may agree that the Board submitted the results if its 17 years if implementation practices and experience whereas each of us have just expressed our individual experience . Let us not argue that but just agree that what the Board suggested stemmed from facts and figures in a more general than other facts and figures submitted by individuals convoluted and amalgamated in what CCWG suggested Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Sep 2015, at 18:31, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I disagree with the notion that the Board presents fact and the rest of the Community presents theory. Many in the other parts of this community have been involved in the ICANN bottom-up multistakeholder process for as long as the Board members. Some even longer with a greater degree of experience. And though our view is not the view from the privilege of Board perspective, it is probably just as validly based on that which is the case.
The Board's views are important, and based on their ability to affect the results of the community's work have a special role in our considerations. But please lets not elevate their position to the one truth we must all recognize.
avri
On 28-Sep-15 11:38, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Ed I always respect your views but this time with a little bit if reluctance. Board, s views contain a great degree of valuable importance as it speaks for implementation of the idea whereas we purely were thinking and discussing of almost theory. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Sep 2015, at 15:26, avri doria <avri@ella.com <mailto:avri@ella.com>> wrote:
Hi,
Or we may have to realize that the Board's fear of the community and the FUD about what we might do, is so great that they will never be able to accept a membership model. The historical and continuing aversion of ICANN's Board and legal advisers to the notion of allowing the community to have any kind of membership may just be part of its nature and something they are incapable of 'blinking' about. It may be the threshold ceiling this experiment in bottom up multistakeholder process can never move beyond. ICANN may, by its very nature and history, never be able to become fully what it aspires to be recognized as.
It then may be up to the community to decide to take whatever crumbs of accountability we can get. One thing I am certain of, one way or another, ICANN will come out of this process changed. It will either continue to lead in developing a true multistakeholder model. Or it may just settle into a slow decline as another organization that never lived up to its promise.
avri
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> Date:09/28/2015 8:15 AM (GMT-05:00) To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.NET <mailto:directors@omadhina.NET>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment
Ed,
of course we must give special attention to the Board. Stare them in the face until they blink :-)-O
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 28 Sep 2015, at 06:27, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:
> Kavouss, > > > I personally attach a very hight level of support to the Board,s > comments which stem from 17 years of valuable experience. While I > support and appreciate public comments but we should give special > attention to the valuable comments from the Board and should not put > those comments in the sane basket of any other comment received > from individual . > > > > I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. I give no greater > weight to the comments of a member of the Board than I do to a > comment from the least privileged amongst us. I give power to the > idea, not to the person or the organisation making it. > > Ed > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Is this a diplomatic thought? From the Board's presentation I think this appears to be EXACTLY what they are demanding. On 28/09/15 18:44, Burr, Becky wrote:
under the Charter by simply acceding to the Board’s position. Nor do I think that is what the Board is demanding – although I acknowledge the
Looking forward to the end-point of this exercise, each of the chartering organizations will have to decide whether to ratify the proposal. Speaking on behalf of the ALAC, we have already gone on record as endorsing certain options that are far from our preferred ones, but that we can live with and that we believe will leave ICANN in a better position than we are now. Each chartering organization will have to make a similar choice. Ultimately, to put the recommended changes into effect, the Board, under the current Bylaws, will have to approve the changes, as that is the only way that the current Bylaws can be changed. Regardless of the amount of community support, they will not likely violate their fiduciary duty and approve changes that they collectively feel are not in the best interests of ICANN, its constituent parts, and the public interest. In all cases, judgement calls will be involved. Any possible outcome, other than deadlock, needs to satisfy both sets of constraints. Alan At 28/09/2015 01:44 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
I certainly respect the experience and perspective of the Board. On the other hand, I am mindful of the fact that many participants in the CCWG have been laboring in this field for a lot longer than the average Board member indeed from the inception. And, our views have been informed by extensive public comments. So the experience and perspective of the CCWG both individual members and collectively also deserves respect.
We cant view this as binary. We must carefully consider whats best in all of the options on the table, understand what is do-able, and proceed from that point. I do not see how we could fulfill our obligations under the Charter by simply acceding to the Boards position. Nor do I think that is what the Board is demanding although I acknowledge the Boards delivery sometime conveyed that impression.
B
From: Rudolph Daniel <<mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com>rudi.daniel@gmail.com> Date: Monday, September 28, 2015 at 1:11 PM To: James Gannon <<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: Avri Doria <<mailto:avri@acm.org>avri@acm.org>, Accountability Community <<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment
+1 James Community has journeyed too far to hang its head ...we may be at a critical moment in the m' stakeholder process. RD On Sep 28, 2015 1:01 PM, "James Gannon" <<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote: I would prefer not to throw away the multistakeholder process in the name of the transition. I dont know if Im alone in that view but its certainly one I hold.
-James
On 28/09/2015 17:47, "<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" <<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Avri You may agree that the Board submitted the results if its 17 years if implementation practices and experience whereas each of us have just expressed our individual experience . Let us not argue that but just agree that what the Board suggested stemmed from facts and figures in a more general than other facts and figures submitted by individuals convoluted and amalgamated in what CCWG suggested Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Sep 2015, at 18:31, Avri Doria <<mailto:avri@acm.org>avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I disagree with the notion that the Board presents fact and the rest of the Community presents theory. Many in the other parts of this community have been involved in the ICANN bottom-up multistakeholder process for as long as the Board members. Some even longer with a greater degree of experience. And though our view is not the view from the privilege of Board perspective, it is probably just as validly based on that which is the case.
The Board's views are important, and based on their ability to affect the results of the community's work have a special role in our considerations. But please lets not elevate their position to the one truth we must all recognize.
avri
On 28-Sep-15 11:38, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Ed I always respect your views but this time with a little bit if reluctance. Board, s views contain a great degree of valuable importance as it speaks for implementation of the idea whereas we purely were thinking and discussing of almost theory. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Sep 2015, at 15:26, avri doria <<mailto:avri@ella.com>avri@ella.com <mailto:avri@ella.com>> wrote:
Hi,
Or we may have to realize that the Board's fear of the community and the FUD about what we might do, is so great that they will never be able to accept a membership model. The historical and continuing aversion of ICANN's Board and legal advisers to the notion of allowing the community to have any kind of membership may just be part of its nature and something they are incapable of 'blinking' about. It may be the threshold ceiling this experiment in bottom up multistakeholder process can never move beyond. ICANN may, by its very nature and history, never be able to become fully what it aspires to be recognized as.
It then may be up to the community to decide to take whatever crumbs of accountability we can get. One thing I am certain of, one way or another, ICANN will come out of this process changed. It will either continue to lead in developing a true multistakeholder model. Or it may just settle into a slow decline as another organization that never lived up to its promise.
avri
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> Date:09/28/2015 8:15 AM (GMT-05:00) To: CCWG Accountability <<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <<mailto:directors@omadhina.NET>directors@omadhina.NET <mailto:directors@omadhina.NET>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment
Ed,
of course we must give special attention to the Board. Stare them in the face until they blink :-)-O
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 28 Sep 2015, at 06:27, Edward Morris <<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:
Kavouss,
I personally attach a very hight level of support to the Board,s comments which stem from 17 years of valuable experience. While I support and appreciate public comments but we should give special attention to the valuable comments from the Board and should not put those comments in the sane basket of any other comment received from individual .
I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. I give no greater weight to the comments of a member of the Board than I do to a comment from the least privileged amongst us. I give power to the idea, not to the person or the organisation making it.
Ed
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ZafcqlbrSgE4Bd9g3x12aZFbXdcCnbzhUqPK9_CgRa0&s=6sqOTKdEGThwLylpF-f8f81F0ZzUG2OQke29-vDbztw&e=>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.or g>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi all Watching the process of finalising the CCWG-A proposal from afar is not easy and if my comments that follow are way off beam, please ignore them. It seems to me that there are now two proposals on the table the CCWG-A's SMM and the Board's MEM. The CCWG-A's proposal is the product of long debates and fine-tuning and represents, as Alan notes, a fragile compromise between the various stakeholders. The Board's MEM is clearly the product of the Board's thinking and strategising around the issue. For me it would be a mistake to try and forge a compromise proposal between the SMM and the MEM. I would recommend that the two proposals be worked on separately and then tested before the Dublin meeting with the chartering organisations. One observation I would make is that the SMM puts a high threshold on community decisions to take action on the community powers. The rationale behind this is to ensure that they are exercised minimally as instruments of last resort. The MEM tries to replicate this process in its procedures for activating the MEM: Process to Initiate MEM Arbitration: 1.Any single SO or AC, by some measure of consensus, can initiate a petition to commence MEM Arbitration 2.The SO or AC would provide a notice of the petition to all other SOs and ACs and begin a discussion phase with all other SOs and ACs (15 days). 3.The SOs and ACs will then have 21 days to considerwhether to support the petition. 4.To initiate formal MEM proceedings, the agreed number of SOs and ACs must support the petition. If there is sufficient support amongst the SOs and ACs then representatives of those supporting Sos and ACs would become the MEM Issue Group. 5. The MEM Issue Group would then submit a request for Arbitration to the Standing Panel alleging a violation of at least one Fundamental Bylaw and including the grounds upon which that alleged violation occured. This complicated process of consultation seems to be surplus to requirements. If there is no Sole Member, then any SO or AC should be able to initiate the Arbitration process based on its identiying a violation and the outcome of the arbitration should include the activation of any of the five Community Powers. Arbitration is there to test the veracity of the claimed violation - it does not matter whether more than one SO or AC agrees or not - because they are not consituted as members. This is why it is not helpful to mix the two proposals - they are addressing different accountability matters. If the Board wants its MEM then any stakeholder should be able to activate it. Best regards Willie Currie, On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Looking forward to the end-point of this exercise, each of the chartering organizations will have to decide whether to ratify the proposal. Speaking on behalf of the ALAC, we have already gone on record as endorsing certain options that are far from our preferred ones, but that we can live with and that we believe will leave ICANN in a better position than we are now. Each chartering organization will have to make a similar choice.
Ultimately, to put the recommended changes into effect, the Board, under the current Bylaws, will have to approve the changes, as that is the only way that the current Bylaws can be changed. Regardless of the amount of community support, they will not likely violate their fiduciary duty and approve changes that they collectively feel are not in the best interests of ICANN, its constituent parts, and the public interest.
In all cases, judgement calls will be involved.
Any possible outcome, other than deadlock, needs to satisfy both sets of constraints.
Alan
At 28/09/2015 01:44 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
I certainly respect the experience and perspective of the Board. On the other hand, I am mindful of the fact that many participants in the CCWG have been laboring in this field for a lot longer than the average Board member – indeed from the inception. And, our views have been informed by extensive public comments. So the experience and perspective of the CCWG – both individual members and collectively – also deserves respect.
We can’t view this as binary. We must carefully consider what’s best in all of the options on the table, understand what is do-able, and proceed from that point. I do not see how we could fulfill our obligations under the Charter by simply acceding to the Board’s position. Nor do I think that is what the Board is demanding – although I acknowledge the Board’s delivery sometime conveyed that impression.
B
From: Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com > Date: Monday, September 28, 2015 at 1:11 PM To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net > Cc: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, Accountability Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment
+1 James Community has journeyed too far to hang its head ...we may be at a critical moment in the m' stakeholder process. RD On Sep 28, 2015 1:01 PM, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net > wrote: I would prefer not to throw away the multistakeholder process in the name of the transition. I don’t know if I’m alone in that view but its certainly one I hold.
-James
On 28/09/2015 17:47, " 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:
Avri You may agree that the Board submitted the results if its 17 years if implementation practices and experience whereas each of us have just expressed our individual experience . Let us not argue that but just agree that what the Board suggested stemmed from facts and figures in a more general than other facts and figures submitted by individuals convoluted and amalgamated in what CCWG suggested Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Sep 2015, at 18:31, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I disagree with the notion that the Board presents fact and the rest of the Community presents theory. Many in the other parts of this community have been involved in the ICANN bottom-up multistakeholder process for as long as the Board members. Some even longer with a greater degree of experience. And though our view is not the view from the privilege of Board perspective, it is probably just as validly based on that which is the case.
The Board's views are important, and based on their ability to affect the results of the community's work have a special role in our considerations. But please lets not elevate their position to the one truth we must all recognize.
avri
On 28-Sep-15 11:38, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Ed I always respect your views but this time with a little bit if reluctance. Board, s views contain a great degree of valuable importance as it speaks for implementation of the idea whereas we purely were thinking and discussing of almost theory. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Sep 2015, at 15:26, avri doria <avri@ella.com < mailto:avri@ella.com <avri@ella.com>>> wrote:
Hi,
Or we may have to realize that the Board's fear of the community and the FUD about what we might do, is so great that they will never be able to accept a membership model. The historical and continuing aversion of ICANN's Board and legal advisers to the notion of allowing the community to have any kind of membership may just be part of its nature and something they are incapable of 'blinking' about. It may be the threshold ceiling this experiment in bottom up multistakeholder process can never move beyond. ICANN may, by its very nature and history, never be able to become fully what it aspires to be recognized as.
It then may be up to the community to decide to take whatever crumbs of accountability we can get. One thing I am certain of, one way or another, ICANN will come out of this process changed. It will either continue to lead in developing a true multistakeholder model. Or it may just settle into a slow decline as another organization that never lived up to its promise.
avri
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com < mailto:epilisse@gmail.com <epilisse@gmail.com>>> Date:09/28/2015 8:15 AM (GMT-05:00) To: CCWG Accountability < accountability-cross-community@icann.org < mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.NET < mailto:directors@omadhina.NET <directors@omadhina.NET>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment
Ed,
of course we must give special attention to the Board. Stare them in the face until they blink :-)-O
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 28 Sep 2015, at 06:27, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net < mailto:egmorris1@toast.net <egmorris1@toast.net>>> wrote:
Kavouss,
I personally attach a very hight level of support to the Board,s comments which stem from 17 years of valuable experience. While I support and appreciate public comments but we should give special attention to the valuable comments from the Board and should not put those comments in the sane basket of any other comment received from individual .
I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. I give no greater weight to the comments of a member of the Board than I do to a comment from the least privileged amongst us. I give power to the idea, not to the person or the organisation making it.
Ed
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org < mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org < mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus...>
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi, I don't agree that there is any more factual basis in the Board's views than in ours or in any other commenter. With two exceptions: they have a more factual view of the things they will never agree to and have more knowledge about discussions they may have had without transparency But am comfortable agreeing to disagree on this point. avri On 28-Sep-15 12:47, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Avri You may agree that the Board submitted the results if its 17 years if implementation practices and experience whereas each of us have just expressed our individual experience . Let us not argue that but just agree that what the Board suggested stemmed from facts and figures in a more general than other facts and figures submitted by individuals convoluted and amalgamated in what CCWG suggested Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Sep 2015, at 18:31, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I disagree with the notion that the Board presents fact and the rest of the Community presents theory. Many in the other parts of this community have been involved in the ICANN bottom-up multistakeholder process for as long as the Board members. Some even longer with a greater degree of experience. And though our view is not the view from the privilege of Board perspective, it is probably just as validly based on that which is the case.
The Board's views are important, and based on their ability to affect the results of the community's work have a special role in our considerations. But please lets not elevate their position to the one truth we must all recognize.
avri
On 28-Sep-15 11:38, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Ed I always respect your views but this time with a little bit if reluctance. Board, s views contain a great degree of valuable importance as it speaks for implementation of the idea whereas we purely were thinking and discussing of almost theory. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Sep 2015, at 15:26, avri doria <avri@ella.com <mailto:avri@ella.com>> wrote:
Hi,
Or we may have to realize that the Board's fear of the community and the FUD about what we might do, is so great that they will never be able to accept a membership model. The historical and continuing aversion of ICANN's Board and legal advisers to the notion of allowing the community to have any kind of membership may just be part of its nature and something they are incapable of 'blinking' about. It may be the threshold ceiling this experiment in bottom up multistakeholder process can never move beyond. ICANN may, by its very nature and history, never be able to become fully what it aspires to be recognized as.
It then may be up to the community to decide to take whatever crumbs of accountability we can get. One thing I am certain of, one way or another, ICANN will come out of this process changed. It will either continue to lead in developing a true multistakeholder model. Or it may just settle into a slow decline as another organization that never lived up to its promise.
avri
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> Date:09/28/2015 8:15 AM (GMT-05:00) To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.NET <mailto:directors@omadhina.NET>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment
Ed,
of course we must give special attention to the Board. Stare them in the face until they blink :-)-O
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 28 Sep 2015, at 06:27, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:
Kavouss,
I personally attach a very hight level of support to the Board,s comments which stem from 17 years of valuable experience. While I support and appreciate public comments but we should give special attention to the valuable comments from the Board and should not put those comments in the sane basket of any other comment received from individual .
I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. I give no greater weight to the comments of a member of the Board than I do to a comment from the least privileged amongst us. I give power to the idea, not to the person or the organisation making it.
Ed
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
participants (9)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Burr, Becky -
Greg Shatan -
James Gannon -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Nigel Roberts -
Rudolph Daniel -
william currie