Work Stream 2 - Board position
Dear Bruce, with this e-mail, we would like to formally approach you in your capacity as Board liaison to provide some clarity on how the Board wishes to deal with WS2. As you know, the concept of two Work Streams has been introduced by the Board more than a year ago as follows: “Following the community requested 21-day second round of comments, ICANN received 17 comments. Based on the input received from these comments, staff believes that the strong community comments in the second round of comments support integrating the originally proposed structure (CCG/Coordination Group) into establishing a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) that incorporates some key elements that have arisen in the dialogues. Additionally, given the input over the course of the dialogue on this process, it's suggested that the CCWG has two work steams, one focused on accountability in view of ICANN's changing historical relationship with the USG, and the second, on the broader accountability issues the community would like to bring to the forefront.” (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en) This concept was confirmed by NTIA on several occasions and our group has structured its work plan accordingly. We do note that the Board has recently suggested to deal with certain items in the framework of reviews and continuous improvements. However, many CCWG colleagues are concerned that this might lead to a situation where the items the CCWG has identified as WS2 items would not be dealt with with the required attention. We are also aware of concerns that ICANN must not leave major changes to a later point in time to avoid uncertainty about ICANN changing e.g. its governance model after the transition. We note that areas of work for WS2 will be published with our report and included in our recommendations. It is a finite list of clearly identified subjects, all of which are important, but none of which would substantially change ICANN other than further enhancing its accountability. May we therefore ask the Board to formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations? Thank you for your attention to this matter. Kind regards, León Sanchez Mathieu Weill Thomas Rickert
I find this helpful. Well done. I do have some small reservations about the final para which reads "May we therefore ask the Board to formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations?" They can commit all they like. But what matters is whether there is any enforceability (to borrow a term from a source I respect) should a future Board not live up to the committments of the present Board. So I would hope the Board would answer with HOW they would guarantee their commitment (which, in good faith, I believe to be indubitable) Nigel On 11/05/2015 07:43 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
Dear Bruce, with this e-mail, we would like to formally approach you in your capacity as Board liaison to provide some clarity on how the Board wishes to deal with WS2.
As you know, the concept of two Work Streams has been introduced by the Board more than a year ago as follows:
“Following the community requested 21-day second round of comments, ICANN received 17 comments. Based on the input received from these comments, staff believes that the strong community comments in the second round of comments support integrating the originally proposed structure (CCG/Coordination Group) into establishing a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) that incorporates some key elements that have arisen in the dialogues. Additionally, given the input over the course of the dialogue on this process, it's suggested that the CCWG has two work steams, one focused on accountability in view of ICANN's changing historical relationship with the USG, and the second, on the broader accountability issues the community would like to bring to the forefront.”
(https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en)
This concept was confirmed by NTIA on several occasions and our group has structured its work plan accordingly.
We do note that the Board has recently suggested to deal with certain items in the framework of reviews and continuous improvements. However, many CCWG colleagues are concerned that this might lead to a situation where the items the CCWG has identified as WS2 items would not be dealt with with the required attention.
We are also aware of concerns that ICANN must not leave major changes to a later point in time to avoid uncertainty about ICANN changing e.g. its governance model after the transition. We note that areas of work for WS2 will be published with our report and included in our recommendations. It is a finite list of clearly identified subjects, all of which are important, but none of which would substantially change ICANN other than further enhancing its accountability.
May we therefore ask the Board to formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Kind regards, León Sanchez Mathieu Weill Thomas Rickert
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 Nigel. As Nigel rightly points out, having the Board "...formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations" means absolutely nothing both for the reasons that Nigel cites, as well as others. Anything short of an iron-clad guarantee that the WS2 recommendations will be taken up in an honest, forthright, and TIMELY manner to me is an abdication of the CCWG's responsibilities, and one might as well consign any WS2 items to the dung heap of ICANN history otherwise. Stephen Deerhake -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 3:00 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work Stream 2 - Board position I find this helpful. Well done. I do have some small reservations about the final para which reads "May we therefore ask the Board to formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations?" They can commit all they like. But what matters is whether there is any enforceability (to borrow a term from a source I respect) should a future Board not live up to the committments of the present Board. So I would hope the Board would answer with HOW they would guarantee their commitment (which, in good faith, I believe to be indubitable) Nigel On 11/05/2015 07:43 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
Dear Bruce, with this e-mail, we would like to formally approach you in your capacity as Board liaison to provide some clarity on how the Board wishes to deal with WS2.
As you know, the concept of two Work Streams has been introduced by the Board more than a year ago as follows:
“Following the community requested 21-day second round of comments, ICANN received 17 comments. Based on the input received from these comments, staff believes that the strong community comments in the second round of comments support integrating the originally proposed structure (CCG/Coordination Group) into establishing a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) that incorporates some key elements that have arisen in the dialogues. Additionally, given the input over the course of the dialogue on this process, it's suggested that the CCWG has two work steams, one focused on accountability in view of ICANN's changing historical relationship with the USG, and the second, on the broader accountability issues the community would like to bring to the forefront.”
(https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en)
This concept was confirmed by NTIA on several occasions and our group has structured its work plan accordingly.
We do note that the Board has recently suggested to deal with certain items in the framework of reviews and continuous improvements. However, many CCWG colleagues are concerned that this might lead to a situation where the items the CCWG has identified as WS2 items would not be dealt with with the required attention.
We are also aware of concerns that ICANN must not leave major changes to a later point in time to avoid uncertainty about ICANN changing e.g. its governance model after the transition. We note that areas of work for WS2 will be published with our report and included in our recommendations. It is a finite list of clearly identified subjects, all of which are important, but none of which would substantially change ICANN other than further enhancing its accountability.
May we therefore ask the Board to formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Kind regards, León Sanchez Mathieu Weill Thomas Rickert
_______________________________________________ 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 Christopher Wilson Vice President, Government Affairs 21st Century Fox 400 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 890 Washington, D.C. 20001 T +1 202-824-6514 cwilson@21CF.com -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Deerhake Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2015 3:57 PM To: 'Nigel Roberts'; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work Stream 2 - Board position +1 Nigel. As Nigel rightly points out, having the Board "...formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations" means absolutely nothing both for the reasons that Nigel cites, as well as others. Anything short of an iron-clad guarantee that the WS2 recommendations will be taken up in an honest, forthright, and TIMELY manner to me is an abdication of the CCWG's responsibilities, and one might as well consign any WS2 items to the dung heap of ICANN history otherwise. Stephen Deerhake -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 3:00 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work Stream 2 - Board position I find this helpful. Well done. I do have some small reservations about the final para which reads "May we therefore ask the Board to formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations?" They can commit all they like. But what matters is whether there is any enforceability (to borrow a term from a source I respect) should a future Board not live up to the committments of the present Board. So I would hope the Board would answer with HOW they would guarantee their commitment (which, in good faith, I believe to be indubitable) Nigel On 11/05/2015 07:43 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
Dear Bruce, with this e-mail, we would like to formally approach you in your capacity as Board liaison to provide some clarity on how the Board wishes to deal with WS2.
As you know, the concept of two Work Streams has been introduced by the Board more than a year ago as follows:
“Following the community requested 21-day second round of comments, ICANN received 17 comments. Based on the input received from these comments, staff believes that the strong community comments in the second round of comments support integrating the originally proposed structure (CCG/Coordination Group) into establishing a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) that incorporates some key elements that have arisen in the dialogues. Additionally, given the input over the course of the dialogue on this process, it's suggested that the CCWG has two work steams, one focused on accountability in view of ICANN's changing historical relationship with the USG, and the second, on the broader accountability issues the community would like to bring to the forefront.”
(https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_re sources_pages_process-2Dnext-2Dsteps-2D2014-2D10-2D10-2Den&d=CwIGaQ&c= QCEPhmH9WJ8wFC_LYDIWIQ&r=_yIH0j711TdLk87MBYWQ4A&m=p92aXEHNX9FIlgU9FWF_ hdBVGj_G1dY6ExKYYC9Tne8&s=C3tOi8p2NjUqt57lUagQNIHll1Dyydt-HgFLAwzsxGY& e= )
This concept was confirmed by NTIA on several occasions and our group has structured its work plan accordingly.
We do note that the Board has recently suggested to deal with certain items in the framework of reviews and continuous improvements. However, many CCWG colleagues are concerned that this might lead to a situation where the items the CCWG has identified as WS2 items would not be dealt with with the required attention.
We are also aware of concerns that ICANN must not leave major changes to a later point in time to avoid uncertainty about ICANN changing e.g. its governance model after the transition. We note that areas of work for WS2 will be published with our report and included in our recommendations. It is a finite list of clearly identified subjects, all of which are important, but none of which would substantially change ICANN other than further enhancing its accountability.
May we therefore ask the Board to formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Kind regards, León Sanchez Mathieu Weill Thomas Rickert
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail man_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=QCEPhmH9WJ8 wFC_LYDIWIQ&r=_yIH0j711TdLk87MBYWQ4A&m=p92aXEHNX9FIlgU9FWF_hdBVGj_G1dY 6ExKYYC9Tne8&s=EnkhlH7xVm52J5WS9TPbvrnC3_vmy2FLO1TZw7f6TzQ&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
Hello, If this is on the assumption that current board commitments may not be honoured by upcoming board members. Then I would say it will be unfortunate for such board member as I expect that not all board member will be new so the historical status will be passed across to incoming members. However when such board member doesn't comply, one will then expect that the compliance/enforcement mechanisms put in place in WS1 Will kick in. Therefore getting commitment to pursue what has been defined in WS2 from board will be an important exhibit towards ensuring compliance. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 6 Nov 2015 05:00, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
I find this helpful. Well done.
I do have some small reservations about the final para which reads "May we therefore ask the Board to formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations?"
They can commit all they like. But what matters is whether there is any enforceability (to borrow a term from a source I respect) should a future Board not live up to the committments of the present Board.
So I would hope the Board would answer with HOW they would guarantee their commitment (which, in good faith, I believe to be indubitable)
Nigel
On 11/05/2015 07:43 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
Dear Bruce, with this e-mail, we would like to formally approach you in your capacity as Board liaison to provide some clarity on how the Board wishes to deal with WS2.
As you know, the concept of two Work Streams has been introduced by the Board more than a year ago as follows:
“Following the community requested 21-day second round of comments, ICANN received 17 comments. Based on the input received from these comments, staff believes that the strong community comments in the second round of comments support integrating the originally proposed structure (CCG/Coordination Group) into establishing a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) that incorporates some key elements that have arisen in the dialogues. Additionally, given the input over the course of the dialogue on this process, it's suggested that the CCWG has two work steams, one focused on accountability in view of ICANN's changing historical relationship with the USG, and the second, on the broader accountability issues the community would like to bring to the forefront.”
(https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en)
This concept was confirmed by NTIA on several occasions and our group has structured its work plan accordingly.
We do note that the Board has recently suggested to deal with certain items in the framework of reviews and continuous improvements. However, many CCWG colleagues are concerned that this might lead to a situation where the items the CCWG has identified as WS2 items would not be dealt with with the required attention.
We are also aware of concerns that ICANN must not leave major changes to a later point in time to avoid uncertainty about ICANN changing e.g. its governance model after the transition. We note that areas of work for WS2 will be published with our report and included in our recommendations. It is a finite list of clearly identified subjects, all of which are important, but none of which would substantially change ICANN other than further enhancing its accountability.
May we therefore ask the Board to formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Kind regards, León Sanchez Mathieu Weill Thomas Rickert
_______________________________________________ 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
Exactly. If WS1 isn't a sufficient guarantee for WS 2, we have failed. Jonathan Zuck President ACT: The App Association On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 1:20 AM -0800, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello, If this is on the assumption that current board commitments may not be honoured by upcoming board members. Then I would say it will be unfortunate for such board member as I expect that not all board member will be new so the historical status will be passed across to incoming members. However when such board member doesn't comply, one will then expect that the compliance/enforcement mechanisms put in place in WS1 Will kick in. Therefore getting commitment to pursue what has been defined in WS2 from board will be an important exhibit towards ensuring compliance. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 6 Nov 2015 05:00, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote: I find this helpful. Well done. I do have some small reservations about the final para which reads "May we therefore ask the Board to formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations?" They can commit all they like. But what matters is whether there is any enforceability (to borrow a term from a source I respect) should a future Board not live up to the committments of the present Board. So I would hope the Board would answer with HOW they would guarantee their commitment (which, in good faith, I believe to be indubitable) Nigel On 11/05/2015 07:43 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote: Dear Bruce, with this e-mail, we would like to formally approach you in your capacity as Board liaison to provide some clarity on how the Board wishes to deal with WS2. As you know, the concept of two Work Streams has been introduced by the Board more than a year ago as follows: "Following the community requested 21-day second round of comments, ICANN received 17 comments. Based on the input received from these comments, staff believes that the strong community comments in the second round of comments support integrating the originally proposed structure (CCG/Coordination Group) into establishing a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) that incorporates some key elements that have arisen in the dialogues. Additionally, given the input over the course of the dialogue on this process, it's suggested that the CCWG has two work steams, one focused on accountability in view of ICANN's changing historical relationship with the USG, and the second, on the broader accountability issues the community would like to bring to the forefront." (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en) This concept was confirmed by NTIA on several occasions and our group has structured its work plan accordingly. We do note that the Board has recently suggested to deal with certain items in the framework of reviews and continuous improvements. However, many CCWG colleagues are concerned that this might lead to a situation where the items the CCWG has identified as WS2 items would not be dealt with with the required attention. We are also aware of concerns that ICANN must not leave major changes to a later point in time to avoid uncertainty about ICANN changing e.g. its governance model after the transition. We note that areas of work for WS2 will be published with our report and included in our recommendations. It is a finite list of clearly identified subjects, all of which are important, but none of which would substantially change ICANN other than further enhancing its accountability. May we therefore ask the Board to formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations? Thank you for your attention to this matter. Kind regards, Le?n Sanchez Mathieu Weill Thomas Rickert _______________________________________________ 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
On 05/11/2015 19:59, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I find this helpful. Well done.
I do have some small reservations about the final para which reads "May we therefore ask the Board to formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations?"
They can commit all they like. But what matters is whether there is any enforceability (to borrow a term from a source I respect) should a future Board not live up to the committments of the present Board.
So I would hope the Board would answer with HOW they would guarantee their commitment (which, in good faith, I believe to be indubitable
Actually, I think the point that has been brought into question is not whether the Board commit nor whether it is enforceable, but whether that line of work would be pursued through the CCWG or whether it will be dispersed. Concerns have been expressed that dispersal will result in dissipation, and that closing the CCWG will remove the only or most effective mechanism to pursue WS2. Previously, we believe we had assurance that WS2 would continue; more recently, the Board has introduced a suggestion that that might not be the case. So what we should be seeking to have confirmed is the Board's commitment that this CCWG may continue to exist for the purpose of developing plans and overseeing the implementation of WS2, and that the Board will continue to co-operate with the CCWG during that process. Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
Agree. -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 6:32 AM To: Nigel Roberts; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work Stream 2 - Board position On 05/11/2015 19:59, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I find this helpful. Well done.
I do have some small reservations about the final para which reads "May we therefore ask the Board to formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations?"
They can commit all they like. But what matters is whether there is any enforceability (to borrow a term from a source I respect) should a future Board not live up to the committments of the present Board.
So I would hope the Board would answer with HOW they would guarantee their commitment (which, in good faith, I believe to be indubitable
Actually, I think the point that has been brought into question is not whether the Board commit nor whether it is enforceable, but whether that line of work would be pursued through the CCWG or whether it will be dispersed. Concerns have been expressed that dispersal will result in dissipation, and that closing the CCWG will remove the only or most effective mechanism to pursue WS2. Previously, we believe we had assurance that WS2 would continue; more recently, the Board has introduced a suggestion that that might not be the case. So what we should be seeking to have confirmed is the Board's commitment that this CCWG may continue to exist for the purpose of developing plans and overseeing the implementation of WS2, and that the Board will continue to co-operate with the CCWG during that process. Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.net_&... London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
Likewise. Without assurance that the CCWG will persist to pursue WS2 accountability matters there is a high likelihood of dissipation of focused effort and mission failure. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilson, Christopher Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 11:05 AM To: Malcolm Hutty; Nigel Roberts; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work Stream 2 - Board position Agree. -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 6:32 AM To: Nigel Roberts; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work Stream 2 - Board position On 05/11/2015 19:59, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I find this helpful. Well done.
I do have some small reservations about the final para which reads "May we therefore ask the Board to formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations?"
They can commit all they like. But what matters is whether there is any enforceability (to borrow a term from a source I respect) should a future Board not live up to the committments of the present Board.
So I would hope the Board would answer with HOW they would guarantee their commitment (which, in good faith, I believe to be indubitable
Actually, I think the point that has been brought into question is not whether the Board commit nor whether it is enforceable, but whether that line of work would be pursued through the CCWG or whether it will be dispersed. Concerns have been expressed that dispersal will result in dissipation, and that closing the CCWG will remove the only or most effective mechanism to pursue WS2. Previously, we believe we had assurance that WS2 would continue; more recently, the Board has introduced a suggestion that that might not be the case. So what we should be seeking to have confirmed is the Board's commitment that this CCWG may continue to exist for the purpose of developing plans and overseeing the implementation of WS2, and that the Board will continue to co-operate with the CCWG during that process. Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.net_&... London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org 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 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Or alternatively, one last massive push to put all things WS2 into WS1. Further, any doubts about WS2 destabilize WS1 recommendations that have WS2 dependencies. No matter how you slice it, WS2 is a necessary part of the overall CCWG work plan and removing it has several consequences, and I can't think of any that are good. Greg On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Likewise. Without assurance that the CCWG will persist to pursue WS2 accountability matters there is a high likelihood of dissipation of focused effort and mission failure.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilson, Christopher Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 11:05 AM To: Malcolm Hutty; Nigel Roberts; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work Stream 2 - Board position
Agree.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 6:32 AM To: Nigel Roberts; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work Stream 2 - Board position
On 05/11/2015 19:59, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I find this helpful. Well done.
I do have some small reservations about the final para which reads "May we therefore ask the Board to formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations?"
They can commit all they like. But what matters is whether there is any enforceability (to borrow a term from a source I respect) should a future Board not live up to the committments of the present Board.
So I would hope the Board would answer with HOW they would guarantee their commitment (which, in good faith, I believe to be indubitable
Actually, I think the point that has been brought into question is not whether the Board commit nor whether it is enforceable, but whether that line of work would be pursued through the CCWG or whether it will be dispersed.
Concerns have been expressed that dispersal will result in dissipation, and that closing the CCWG will remove the only or most effective mechanism to pursue WS2. Previously, we believe we had assurance that WS2 would continue; more recently, the Board has introduced a suggestion that that might not be the case.
So what we should be seeking to have confirmed is the Board's commitment that this CCWG may continue to exist for the purpose of developing plans and overseeing the implementation of WS2, and that the Board will continue to co-operate with the CCWG during that process.
Malcolm.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.net_&...
London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
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
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Oh goody … two more years of CCWG meetings! :) Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 12:09 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work Stream 2 - Board position Or alternatively, one last massive push to put all things WS2 into WS1. Further, any doubts about WS2 destabilize WS1 recommendations that have WS2 dependencies. No matter how you slice it, WS2 is a necessary part of the overall CCWG work plan and removing it has several consequences, and I can't think of any that are good. Greg On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> > wrote: Likewise. Without assurance that the CCWG will persist to pursue WS2 accountability matters there is a high likelihood of dissipation of focused effort and mission failure. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597> /Direct 202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750> /Fax 202-255-6172 <tel:202-255-6172> /cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Wilson, Christopher Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 11:05 AM To: Malcolm Hutty; Nigel Roberts; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work Stream 2 - Board position Agree. -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 6:32 AM To: Nigel Roberts; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work Stream 2 - Board position On 05/11/2015 19:59, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I find this helpful. Well done.
I do have some small reservations about the final para which reads "May we therefore ask the Board to formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations?"
They can commit all they like. But what matters is whether there is any enforceability (to borrow a term from a source I respect) should a future Board not live up to the committments of the present Board.
So I would hope the Board would answer with HOW they would guarantee their commitment (which, in good faith, I believe to be indubitable
Actually, I think the point that has been brought into question is not whether the Board commit nor whether it is enforceable, but whether that line of work would be pursued through the CCWG or whether it will be dispersed. Concerns have been expressed that dispersal will result in dissipation, and that closing the CCWG will remove the only or most effective mechanism to pursue WS2. Previously, we believe we had assurance that WS2 would continue; more recently, the Board has introduced a suggestion that that might not be the case. So what we should be seeking to have confirmed is the Board's commitment that this CCWG may continue to exist for the purpose of developing plans and overseeing the implementation of WS2, and that the Board will continue to co-operate with the CCWG during that process. Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.net_ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.net_&...> &d=CwICAg&c=QCEPhmH9WJ8wFC_LYDIWIQ&r=_yIH0j711TdLk87MBYWQ4A&m=uSd-Wscbrow4bq_dloRttMC92IEpjw-qJOCbz0lDvEc&s=o28bEyuKN1gjXoOnaSM3PxlGv7hp431MDbiV6RYObWA&e= London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> &d=CwICAg&c=QCEPhmH9WJ8wFC_LYDIWIQ&r=_yIH0j711TdLk87MBYWQ4A&m=uSd-Wscbrow4bq_dloRttMC92IEpjw-qJOCbz0lDvEc&s=5TzyM6-LGnJWLgRp67V1ybQy2anZvKBH8v3noEa3kE0&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 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ 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
Paul, It hasn't even been a year so far. It only feels like two. Greg On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Oh goody … two more years of CCWG meetings! J
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, November 6, 2015 12:09 PM *To:* Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work Stream 2 - Board position
Or alternatively, one last massive push to put all things WS2 into WS1.
Further, any doubts about WS2 destabilize WS1 recommendations that have WS2 dependencies.
No matter how you slice it, WS2 is a necessary part of the overall CCWG work plan and removing it has several consequences, and I can't think of any that are good.
Greg
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Likewise. Without assurance that the CCWG will persist to pursue WS2 accountability matters there is a high likelihood of dissipation of focused effort and mission failure.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilson, Christopher Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 11:05 AM To: Malcolm Hutty; Nigel Roberts; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work Stream 2 - Board position
Agree.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 6:32 AM To: Nigel Roberts; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work Stream 2 - Board position
On 05/11/2015 19:59, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I find this helpful. Well done.
I do have some small reservations about the final para which reads "May we therefore ask the Board to formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations?"
They can commit all they like. But what matters is whether there is any enforceability (to borrow a term from a source I respect) should a future Board not live up to the committments of the present Board.
So I would hope the Board would answer with HOW they would guarantee their commitment (which, in good faith, I believe to be indubitable
Actually, I think the point that has been brought into question is not whether the Board commit nor whether it is enforceable, but whether that line of work would be pursued through the CCWG or whether it will be dispersed.
Concerns have been expressed that dispersal will result in dissipation, and that closing the CCWG will remove the only or most effective mechanism to pursue WS2. Previously, we believe we had assurance that WS2 would continue; more recently, the Board has introduced a suggestion that that might not be the case.
So what we should be seeking to have confirmed is the Board's commitment that this CCWG may continue to exist for the purpose of developing plans and overseeing the implementation of WS2, and that the Board will continue to co-operate with the CCWG during that process.
Malcolm.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.net_&...
London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
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
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 05/11/2015 19:59, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I find this helpful. Well done.
So what we should be seeking to have confirmed is the Board's commitment that this CCWG may continue to exist for the purpose of developing plans and overseeing the implementation of WS2, and that the Board will continue to co-operate with the CCWG during that process.
I personally don't think the CCWG must be the team to carry out all the work set in WS2. If there are other ways to efficiently diversify and embed the activities in other community processes without distorting the task/objectives then that will be good. Certainly there are specification work that the CCWG should no doubt provide but it doesn't have to be CCWG that will develop the details(and CCWG could just perform general oversight). Unless the CCWG thinks that the community members(which i expect will again involve some of the current CCWG members) that would be involved in the other processes will not do a good job. Regards
Malcolm.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Dear All, Sorry be late, I fully support Nigle, and many other that commented on the last paragraph. Some thing ehich is missing is the strong relation and dependency of the actions to be taken Under work Stream 2 as discussed and determined almost extensively and carefully . There is a missing part in the letter send to indicate that should the activities forseen Under WS2 is not executed/ performed it would have adverse impact on several ietem which are being contained in the recommendations of WS1.
From Board's submission to LA ,it is clear that the Board intends to integrate WORK Stream 2 IN ITS DAY TO DAY ACTIVITIES WITHOUT BEING FORMALLY FOLLOWED AS ENVISAGED BY CCWG. Moreover the extent to which the forseen actions will be forfomed as well as the time frame for that is totally unclear. I also agree the commimment given by current Board may not be pursued by the future fBoard that many important elelement of post transition accountability will be on the air with no desteny Kavouss
2015-11-07 2:14 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 05/11/2015 19:59, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I find this helpful. Well done.
So what we should be seeking to have confirmed is the Board's commitment that this CCWG may continue to exist for the purpose of developing plans and overseeing the implementation of WS2, and that the Board will continue to co-operate with the CCWG during that process.
I personally don't think the CCWG must be the team to carry out all the work set in WS2. If there are other ways to efficiently diversify and embed the activities in other community processes without distorting the task/objectives then that will be good. Certainly there are specification work that the CCWG should no doubt provide but it doesn't have to be CCWG that will develop the details(and CCWG could just perform general oversight). Unless the CCWG thinks that the community members(which i expect will again involve some of the current CCWG members) that would be involved in the other processes will not do a good job.
Regards
Malcolm.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thanks Thomas - just acknowledging receipt of your request. I will work to get a response back. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Friday, 6 November 2015 6:43 AM To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Work Stream 2 - Board position Dear Bruce, with this e-mail, we would like to formally approach you in your capacity as Board liaison to provide some clarity on how the Board wishes to deal with WS2. As you know, the concept of two Work Streams has been introduced by the Board more than a year ago as follows: “Following the community requested 21-day second round of comments, ICANN received 17 comments. Based on the input received from these comments, staff believes that the strong community comments in the second round of comments support integrating the originally proposed structure (CCG/Coordination Group) into establishing a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) that incorporates some key elements that have arisen in the dialogues. Additionally, given the input over the course of the dialogue on this process, it's suggested that the CCWG has two work steams, one focused on accountability in view of ICANN's changing historical relationship with the USG, and the second, on the broader accountability issues the community would like to bring to the forefront.” (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en) This concept was confirmed by NTIA on several occasions and our group has structured its work plan accordingly. We do note that the Board has recently suggested to deal with certain items in the framework of reviews and continuous improvements. However, many CCWG colleagues are concerned that this might lead to a situation where the items the CCWG has identified as WS2 items would not be dealt with with the required attention. We are also aware of concerns that ICANN must not leave major changes to a later point in time to avoid uncertainty about ICANN changing e.g. its governance model after the transition. We note that areas of work for WS2 will be published with our report and included in our recommendations. It is a finite list of clearly identified subjects, all of which are important, but none of which would substantially change ICANN other than further enhancing its accountability. May we therefore ask the Board to formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations? Thank you for your attention to this matter. Kind regards, León Sanchez Mathieu Weill Thomas Rickert
Bruce, thanks for this. I trust you will respond taking into account the points raised by others in this thread. Best, Thomas ======== rickert.net PS - Sent from my cell. Please excuse typos and brevity.
Am 06.11.2015 um 09:56 schrieb Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>:
Thanks Thomas - just acknowledging receipt of your request.
I will work to get a response back.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Friday, 6 November 2015 6:43 AM To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Work Stream 2 - Board position
Dear Bruce, with this e-mail, we would like to formally approach you in your capacity as Board liaison to provide some clarity on how the Board wishes to deal with WS2.
As you know, the concept of two Work Streams has been introduced by the Board more than a year ago as follows:
“Following the community requested 21-day second round of comments, ICANN received 17 comments. Based on the input received from these comments, staff believes that the strong community comments in the second round of comments support integrating the originally proposed structure (CCG/Coordination Group) into establishing a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) that incorporates some key elements that have arisen in the dialogues. Additionally, given the input over the course of the dialogue on this process, it's suggested that the CCWG has two work steams, one focused on accountability in view of ICANN's changing historical relationship with the USG, and the second, on the broader accountability issues the community would like to bring to the forefront.”
(https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en)
This concept was confirmed by NTIA on several occasions and our group has structured its work plan accordingly.
We do note that the Board has recently suggested to deal with certain items in the framework of reviews and continuous improvements. However, many CCWG colleagues are concerned that this might lead to a situation where the items the CCWG has identified as WS2 items would not be dealt with with the required attention.
We are also aware of concerns that ICANN must not leave major changes to a later point in time to avoid uncertainty about ICANN changing e.g. its governance model after the transition. We note that areas of work for WS2 will be published with our report and included in our recommendations. It is a finite list of clearly identified subjects, all of which are important, but none of which would substantially change ICANN other than further enhancing its accountability.
May we therefore ask the Board to formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Kind regards, León Sanchez Mathieu Weill Thomas Rickert
Hello León, Mathieu and Thomas, Thank you for your note and request to confirm the support for WS2. The Board supports the context and elements around the list of WS2 items, and the work of the community to address these points. The Board will use the same approach to accepting the WS2 recommendations as those of WS1, including meeting the criteria set out by NTIA. We look forward to working with you and the community on the mechanisms, and will provide appropriate support for the work on the WS2 issues. Regards, Bruce Tonkin ICANN Board Liaison to the CCWG
Dear Bruce, Thank you very much for conveying this position from the Board. This is a very positive step and very much appreciated. Best regards, Mathieu -----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Bruce Tonkin Envoyé : vendredi 13 novembre 2015 05:17 À : Accountability Cross Community Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work Stream 2 - Board position Hello León, Mathieu and Thomas, Thank you for your note and request to confirm the support for WS2. The Board supports the context and elements around the list of WS2 items, and the work of the community to address these points. The Board will use the same approach to accepting the WS2 recommendations as those of WS1, including meeting the criteria set out by NTIA. We look forward to working with you and the community on the mechanisms, and will provide appropriate support for the work on the WS2 issues. Regards, Bruce Tonkin ICANN Board Liaison to the CCWG _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thank you very much, Bruce! Best, Thomas ======== rickert.net PS - Sent from my cell. Please excuse typos and brevity.
Am 13.11.2015 um 05:17 schrieb Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>:
Hello León, Mathieu and Thomas,
Thank you for your note and request to confirm the support for WS2.
The Board supports the context and elements around the list of WS2 items, and the work of the community to address these points.
The Board will use the same approach to accepting the WS2 recommendations as those of WS1, including meeting the criteria set out by NTIA.
We look forward to working with you and the community on the mechanisms, and will provide appropriate support for the work on the WS2 issues.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
ICANN Board Liaison to the CCWG
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Indeed very helpful Bruce! Thanks! Best regards, León
El 13/11/2015, a las 11:28 a.m., Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> escribió:
Thank you very much, Bruce!
Best, Thomas
======== rickert.net <http://rickert.net/>
PS - Sent from my cell. Please excuse typos and brevity.
Am 13.11.2015 um 05:17 schrieb Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>:
Hello León, Mathieu and Thomas,
Thank you for your note and request to confirm the support for WS2.
The Board supports the context and elements around the list of WS2 items, and the work of the community to address these points.
The Board will use the same approach to accepting the WS2 recommendations as those of WS1, including meeting the criteria set out by NTIA.
We look forward to working with you and the community on the mechanisms, and will provide appropriate support for the work on the WS2 issues.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
ICANN Board Liaison to the CCWG
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (14)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Greg Shatan -
Jonathan Zuck -
Kavouss Arasteh -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Malcolm Hutty -
Mathieu Weill -
Nigel Roberts -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Corwin -
Seun Ojedeji -
Stephen Deerhake -
Thomas Rickert -
Wilson, Christopher