Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 6 and a way forward to include compromise text suggested by the Board
I think that we want a chartering process comparable to that of the CCWG. I presume that if a HR group were to come into existence and was not chartered by a reasonable number of orgs, then the Board would not agree to the "semi-binding" nature of the outcomes (forgive me inventing a new word to describe the CCWG-Board process previously agreed to). Alan At 05/02/2016 01:52 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Alan,
I don't understand the concept of a Cross Community WG chartered by only one AC/SO.
Good pick up. Might be best described as "two or more", or "at least three" if you want a minimum threshold.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Agree with Alan 100%. Any group by which the community develops the HR framework and purports to provide the Board with community (in the broad sense) produced recommendations, advice or guidance needs to be chartered by multiple SOs and ACs to have the appropriate breadth, gravitas and legitimacy for this important, nuanced and challenging task. The alternative is to continue the charter of the CCWG, but that does not seem to be the view of Board and senior staff.... Greg On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I think that we want a chartering process comparable to that of the CCWG. I presume that if a HR group were to come into existence and was not chartered by a reasonable number of orgs, then the Board would not agree to the "semi-binding" nature of the outcomes (forgive me inventing a new word to describe the CCWG-Board process previously agreed to).
Alan
At 05/02/2016 01:52 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Alan,
I don't understand the concept of a Cross Community WG chartered by only one AC/SO.
Good pick up. Might be best described as "two or more", or "at least three" if you want a minimum threshold.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Alan,
I think that we want a chartering process comparable to that of the CCWG.
Agreed. If a separate CCWG was created on human rights - it should have a diverse set of voices and SO/ACs involved. Regards Bruce Tonkin
Hi Bruce, Alan, In this instance, a chartering process for a WS2 / HR body, I suggest that both the SSAC and the RSSAC be encouraged to be participatory. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
Hello Alan,
I think that we want a chartering process comparable to that of the CCWG.
Agreed. If a separate CCWG was created on human rights - it should have a div erse set of voices and SO/ACs involved.
Regards Bruce Tonkin
If there is a reason for breaking the CCWG charter and taking some parts of WS 2 tasks out of the CCWG-accountability, I would like to know it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 5 févr. 2016 à 17:38, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
I think that we want a chartering process comparable to that of the CCWG. I presume that if a HR group were to come into existence and was not chartered by a reasonable number of orgs, then the Board would not agree to the "semi-binding" nature of the outcomes (forgive me inventing a new word to describe the CCWG-Board process previously agreed to).
Alan
At 05/02/2016 01:52 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Alan,
I don't understand the concept of a Cross Community WG chartered by only one AC/SO.
Good pick up. Might be best described as "two or more", or "at least three" if you want a minimum threshold.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Tijani, I'll respond to only one item in the WS2 issue set -- human rights. In my view, the SSAC and RSSAC each, for their own reasons, reasonably chose to have little direct involvement with the core ccwg-acct task, improving some aspects of the Corporation's means of accountability. Also, in my view, some who have contributed to the discussion of human rights have framed the issue as one of free-speech and/or open-ness. A framing of human rights limited to web sites (the resolved resources), or their names (the referant to be resolved) or their authors (the hoary old whois:43 problem), could exist unchanged were we to still be using hosttables to publish name-to-resource mappings. Restated, what the IANA Function comprises is not met by merely making policy w.r.t. speech or access, even when one considers only the naming infrastructure. We have touched on this through the Board's expression of support, as yet to be implemented successfully, of geographic and economic diversity in the Corporation's selection of contracted parties, also through the Board's more successfully implemented expression of support for referants (names) in languages which are not usually written in the Latin Script. You may have observed that the current Chair of the IAB and I have different views on what possible motivations lead to the statement by the Corporation that resolution of the .eg namespace would not fail in the then-forseeable future after all prefixes for Egyptian access networks were withdrawn. You may not have observed that some have argued that IPv6 alloctions be distributed by national sub-allocators, unlike IPv4 allocations, which are mde by regional sub-allocators -- the five RIRs which make up both the NRO and the ASO. The mechanism of national sub-allocation would present barriers to operators seeking to serve diaspora populations -- Roms in Europe, Arabic speakers in Europe, to take two well-known examples.
If there is a reason for breaking the CCWG charter and taking some parts of WS 2 tasks out of the CCWG-accountability, I would like to know it.
I suggest that the decisions of SSAC and RSSAC, not to take an active interest in improvements to corporate accountability, reasonable at the time, can be revisited in the narrower context of identifying those realized, and latent means of advancing human rights, within the core functions of the IANA Functions contractor. As I've mentioned, alternate point of view are available, and of course I've nothing to do with either the SSAC or the RSSAC, or any other Bylaws entity. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
I would point out that SSAC is a Chartering Organization of the CCWg, with two appointed Members, who have been following our discussions and contributed where they felt appropriate. I would also point out that virtually anyone can join the CCWG as a participant at any time, and participate generally or specifically (on a particular effort). As such, the current structure can easily accommodate new or increased participation by SSAC or RSSAC, with regard to HR or any other part of WS2. Greg On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams < ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:
Tijani,
I'll respond to only one item in the WS2 issue set -- human rights.
In my view, the SSAC and RSSAC each, for their own reasons, reasonably chose to have little direct involvement with the core ccwg-acct task, improving some aspects of the Corporation's means of accountability.
Also, in my view, some who have contributed to the discussion of human rights have framed the issue as one of free-speech and/or open-ness.
A framing of human rights limited to web sites (the resolved resources), or their names (the referant to be resolved) or their authors (the hoary old whois:43 problem), could exist unchanged were we to still be using hosttables to publish name-to-resource mappings. Restated, what the IANA Function comprises is not met by merely making policy w.r.t. speech or access, even when one considers only the naming infrastructure. We have touched on this through the Board's expression of support, as yet to be implemented successfully, of geographic and economic diversity in the Corporation's selection of contracted parties, also through the Board's more successfully implemented expression of support for referants (names) in languages which are not usually written in the Latin Script.
You may have observed that the current Chair of the IAB and I have different views on what possible motivations lead to the statement by the Corporation that resolution of the .eg namespace would not fail in the then-forseeable future after all prefixes for Egyptian access networks were withdrawn.
You may not have observed that some have argued that IPv6 alloctions be distributed by national sub-allocators, unlike IPv4 allocations, which are mde by regional sub-allocators -- the five RIRs which make up both the NRO and the ASO. The mechanism of national sub-allocation would present barriers to operators seeking to serve diaspora populations -- Roms in Europe, Arabic speakers in Europe, to take two well-known examples.
If there is a reason for breaking the CCWG charter and taking some parts of WS 2 tasks out of the CCWG-accountability, I would like to know it.
I suggest that the decisions of SSAC and RSSAC, not to take an active interest in improvements to corporate accountability, reasonable at the time, can be revisited in the narrower context of identifying those realized, and latent means of advancing human rights, within the core functions of the IANA Functions contractor.
As I've mentioned, alternate point of view are available, and of course I've nothing to do with either the SSAC or the RSSAC, or any other Bylaws entity.
Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 7 févr. 2016 à 01:04, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> a écrit :
I would point out that SSAC is a Chartering Organization of the CCWg, with two appointed Members, who have been following our discussions and contributed where they felt appropriate. I would also point out that virtually anyone can join the CCWG as a participant at any time, and participate generally or specifically (on a particular effort). As such, the current structure can easily accommodate new or increased participation by SSAC or RSSAC, with regard to HR or any other part of WS2.
Greg
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net <mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>> wrote: Tijani,
I'll respond to only one item in the WS2 issue set -- human rights.
In my view, the SSAC and RSSAC each, for their own reasons, reasonably chose to have little direct involvement with the core ccwg-acct task, improving some aspects of the Corporation's means of accountability.
Also, in my view, some who have contributed to the discussion of human rights have framed the issue as one of free-speech and/or open-ness.
A framing of human rights limited to web sites (the resolved resources), or their names (the referant to be resolved) or their authors (the hoary old whois:43 problem), could exist unchanged were we to still be using hosttables to publish name-to-resource mappings. Restated, what the IANA Function comprises is not met by merely making policy w.r.t. speech or access, even when one considers only the naming infrastructure. We have touched on this through the Board's expression of support, as yet to be implemented successfully, of geographic and economic diversity in the Corporation's selection of contracted parties, also through the Board's more successfully implemented expression of support for referants (names) in languages which are not usually written in the Latin Script.
You may have observed that the current Chair of the IAB and I have different views on what possible motivations lead to the statement by the Corporation that resolution of the .eg namespace would not fail in the then-forseeable future after all prefixes for Egyptian access networks were withdrawn.
You may not have observed that some have argued that IPv6 alloctions be distributed by national sub-allocators, unlike IPv4 allocations, which are mde by regional sub-allocators -- the five RIRs which make up both the NRO and the ASO. The mechanism of national sub-allocation would present barriers to operators seeking to serve diaspora populations -- Roms in Europe, Arabic speakers in Europe, to take two well-known examples.
If there is a reason for breaking the CCWG charter and taking some parts of WS 2 tasks out of the CCWG-accountability, I would like to know it.
I suggest that the decisions of SSAC and RSSAC, not to take an active interest in improvements to corporate accountability, reasonable at the time, can be revisited in the narrower context of identifying those realized, and latent means of advancing human rights, within the core functions of the IANA Functions contractor.
As I've mentioned, alternate point of view are available, and of course I've nothing to do with either the SSAC or the RSSAC, or any other Bylaws entity.
Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
Why are you surprised? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
On 6 Feb 2016, at 19:20, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> wrote:
If there is a reason for breaking the CCWG charter and taking some parts of WS 2 tasks out of the CCWG-accountability, I would like to know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 5 févr. 2016 à 17:38, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
I think that we want a chartering process comparable to that of the CCWG. I presume that if a HR group were to come into existence and was not chartered by a reasonable number of orgs, then the Board would not agree to the "semi-binding" nature of the outcomes (forgive me inventing a new word to describe the CCWG-Board process previously agreed to).
Alan
At 05/02/2016 01:52 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Alan,
I don't understand the concept of a Cross Community WG chartered by only one AC/SO.
Good pick up. Might be best described as "two or more", or "at least three" if you want a minimum threshold.
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
There are several possible reasons: - The Board seems to feel strongly that it would be advisable - It may well be that the "right" people to discuss a certain issue may not be the same as those on the current CCWG. Or may not be the ones with the interest, knowledge and time. - Better opportunity to work in parallel It may not happen, but if there is a will within the chartering organizations, why should it not be allowed? But for the record, I was not necessarily advocating it in my reply, but trying to ensure that if it did end up in the proposal, that it be worded reasonably. Alan At 06/02/2016 12:20 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
If there is a reason for breaking the CCWG charter and taking some parts of WS 2 tasks out of the CCWG-accountability, I would like to know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 5 févr. 2016 à 17:38, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
I think that we want a chartering process comparable to that of the CCWG. I presume that if a HR group were to come into existence and was not chartered by a reasonable number of orgs, then the Board would not agree to the "semi-binding" nature of the outcomes (forgive me inventing a new word to describe the CCWG-Board process previously agreed to).
Alan
At 05/02/2016 01:52 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Alan,
I don't understand the concept of a Cross Community WG chartered by only one AC/SO.
Good pick up. Might be best described as "two or more", or "at least three" if you want a minimum threshold.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ 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
- The Board seems to feel strongly that it would be advisable I would like Why it would be advisable for Board - It may well be that the "right" people to discuss a certain issue may not be the same as those on the current CCWG. Or may not be the ones with the interest, knowledge and time. Anyone who would be the « right » person to discuss the issue, who has the interest, knowledge and/or time, and who is not now on the CCWG may join as participant since the groupe is fully open. - Better opportunity to work in parallel In the CCWG, we have the experience of working in parallel in work parties. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 7 févr. 2016 à 20:05, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
There are several possible reasons:
- The Board seems to feel strongly that it would be advisable - It may well be that the "right" people to discuss a certain issue may not be the same as those on the current CCWG. Or may not be the ones with the interest, knowledge and time. - Better opportunity to work in parallel
It may not happen, but if there is a will within the chartering organizations, why should it not be allowed?
But for the record, I was not necessarily advocating it in my reply, but trying to ensure that if it did end up in the proposal, that it be worded reasonably.
Alan
At 06/02/2016 12:20 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
If there is a reason for breaking the CCWG charter and taking some parts of WS 2 tasks out of the CCWG-accountability, I would like to know it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 5 févr. 2016 à 17:38, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > a écrit :
I think that we want a chartering process comparable to that of the CCWG. I presume that if a HR group were to come into existence and was not chartered by a reasonable number of orgs, then the Board would not agree to the "semi-binding" nature of the outcomes (forgive me inventing a new word to describe the CCWG-Board process previously agreed to).
Alan
At 05/02/2016 01:52 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Alan,
I don't understand the concept of a Cross Community WG chartered by only one AC/SO.
Good pick up. Might be best described as "two or more", or "at least three" if you want a minimum threshold.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Tijani
- The Board seems to feel strongly that it would be advisable I would like Why it would be advisable for Board
From a bylaws perspective - we felt that the Chartering organisations should have the option to split some of the work stream 2 topics into separate CCWG's with perhaps different membership that is most interested and/or skilled in the topic.
As Alan and others have pointed out though - we still envisage that each CCWG should have broad participation from multiple SOs and ACs and basically have the same ability for open participation as the CCWG on accountability. I could imagine that some participants of the CCWG on Accountability would become members of a CCWG on human rights and attend every meeting, and some members may become participants (and monitor the mailing list and attend when available). The CCWG on Accountability still remains as an option to do all the work in work stream 2 - it is up to the chartering organisations to consider how best to manage the work. All we are doing is creating some flexibility. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Bruce makes a fair point. The SOs and ACs may wish to put forth different "members" in an HR context (or in other WS2 contexts), assuming the member/participant dichotomy is preserved in that context. Or the SO/ACs may wish to continue with the same "members" viewing them as general arbiters (as they have been) and not actors dedicated to particular points, in which case continuing the CCWG would be most appropriate. Greg On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:20 AM, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Tijani
- The Board seems to feel strongly that it would be advisable I would like Why it would be advisable for Board
From a bylaws perspective - we felt that the Chartering organisations should have the option to split some of the work stream 2 topics into separate CCWG's with perhaps different membership that is most interested and/or skilled in the topic.
As Alan and others have pointed out though - we still envisage that each CCWG should have broad participation from multiple SOs and ACs and basically have the same ability for open participation as the CCWG on accountability.
I could imagine that some participants of the CCWG on Accountability would become members of a CCWG on human rights and attend every meeting, and some members may become participants (and monitor the mailing list and attend when available).
The CCWG on Accountability still remains as an option to do all the work in work stream 2 - it is up to the chartering organisations to consider how best to manage the work. All we are doing is creating some flexibility.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (7)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Bruce Tonkin -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams -
Greg Shatan -
Tijani BEN JEMAA -
Tijani BEN JEMAA