Meeting with the Icann Board
Dear colleagues, For your information, the co chairs have been invited (on very short notice) during the afternoon to a meeting with the Icann Board and our Advisors. During this meeting, we have briefed the Board about the progress made during our sessions on Friday and Saturday and informed them of the work plan for the week, as we had previsouly done with the GAC. We understand that Bruce Tonkin, in his Liaison capacity, will be in a position to provide an update of the Board's views on Monday during our session. I can convey to all of you the very appreciative comments we have received about the quality of the CCWG work, both from Board members and from our Advisors (Ira, Jan and Valerie were attending). Best, Mathieu
Hello All,
We understand that Bruce Tonkin, in his Liaison capacity, will be in a position to provide an update of the Board's views on Monday during our session.
I can confirm that during this meeting, we informed the co-chairs that I would make a statement on Monday, and that considering the progress made on other areas, the Board was prepared to consider the Designator or Sole Designator models as outlined during the Friday and Saturday CCWG sessions. See you all tomorrow. Regards, Bruce Tonkin ICANN Board liaison to the CCWG
But can someone confirm that the CCWG Accountability is proposing Designator or Sole Designator? My understanding is that it does not. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 18 Oct 2015, at 23:05, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello All,
We understand that Bruce Tonkin, in his Liaison capacity, will be in a position to provide an update of the Board's views on Monday during our session.
I can confirm that during this meeting, we informed the co-chairs that I would make a statement on Monday, and that considering the progress made on other areas, the Board was prepared to consider the Designator or Sole Designator models as outlined during the Friday and Saturday CCWG sessions.
See you all tomorrow.
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
And it should not. It is clear now that MEM was just a make weight proposal to "triangulate" CCWG so that the Board got the weak Designator model. No inspection rights and no budget oversight means Board independence. Very canny by the Board -- almost like MEM was a chimera. I hope we don't fall for the ploy. -- Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 18 October 2015, 06:16PM -04:00 from Dr Eberhard W Lisse < el@lisse.na> :
But can someone confirm that the CCWG Accountability is proposing Designator or Sole Designator?
My understanding is that it does not.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 18 Oct 2015, at 23:05, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au > wrote:
Hello All,
We understand that Bruce Tonkin, in his Liaison capacity, will be in a position to provide an update of the Board's views on Monday during our session.
I can confirm that during this meeting, we informed the co-chairs that I would make a statement on Monday, and that considering the progress made on other areas, the Board was prepared to consider the Designator or Sole Designator models as outlined during the Friday and Saturday CCWG sessions.
See you all tomorrow.
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
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I think we need to look at the models fairly. There is budget oversight in the Designator model, though not as robust in the end as in the Member model. Inspection right was not a prime motivation for moving to the Member model, though we were happy it came with the model; but that is something we can solve on an a la carter basis. I think we need to be in analysis mode, not advocacy mode, as we work through this. On Sunday, October 18, 2015, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
And it should not. It is clear now that MEM was just a make weight proposal to "triangulate" CCWG so that the Board got the weak Designator model. No inspection rights and no budget oversight means Board independence. Very canny by the Board -- almost like MEM was a chimera. I hope we don't fall for the ploy.
-- Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 18 October 2015, 06:16PM -04:00 from Dr Eberhard W Lisse < el@lisse.na <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','el@lisse.na');>>:
But can someone confirm that the CCWG Accountability is proposing Designator or Sole Designator?
My understanding is that it does not.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 18 Oct 2015, at 23:05, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote:
Hello All,
We understand that Bruce Tonkin, in his Liaison capacity, will be in a position to provide an update of the Board's views on Monday during our session.
I can confirm that during this meeting, we informed the co-chairs that I would make a statement on Monday, and that considering the progress made on other areas, the Board was prepared to consider the Designator or Sole Designator models as outlined during the Friday and Saturday CCWG sessions.
See you all tomorrow.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
ICANN Board liaison to the CCWG
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Agreed. I think there's a lot of good faith, and open-minded analysis going on now and if we stay the course, while everyone may not be 100% happy, it will still legitimately be a consensus decision. On Oct 18, 2015, at 8:31 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I think we need to look at the models fairly. There is budget oversight in the Designator model, though not as robust in the end as in the Member model. Inspection right was not a prime motivation for moving to the Member model, though we were happy it came with the model; but that is something we can solve on an a la carter basis. I think we need to be in analysis mode, not advocacy mode, as we work through this. On Sunday, October 18, 2015, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: And it should not. It is clear now that MEM was just a make weight proposal to "triangulate" CCWG so that the Board got the weak Designator model. No inspection rights and no budget oversight means Board independence. Very canny by the Board -- almost like MEM was a chimera. I hope we don't fall for the ploy. -- Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 18 October 2015, 06:16PM -04:00 from Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','el@lisse.na');>>: But can someone confirm that the CCWG Accountability is proposing Designator or Sole Designator? My understanding is that it does not. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 18 Oct 2015, at 23:05, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote:
Hello All,
We understand that Bruce Tonkin, in his Liaison capacity, will be in a position to provide an update of the Board's views on Monday during our session.
I can confirm that during this meeting, we informed the co-chairs that I would make a statement on Monday, and that considering the progress made on other areas, the Board was prepared to consider the Designator or Sole Designator models as outlined during the Friday and Saturday CCWG sessions.
See you all tomorrow.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
ICANN Board liaison to the CCWG
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@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
Completely agree Mike. On 19/10/2015 01:40, Chartier, Mike S wrote:
Agreed. I think there's a lot of good faith, and open-minded analysis going on now and if we stay the course, while everyone may not be 100% happy, it will still legitimately be a consensus decision.
On Oct 18, 2015, at 8:31 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
I think we need to look at the models fairly. There is budget oversight in the Designator model, though not as robust in the end as in the Member model. Inspection right was not a prime motivation for moving to the Member model, though we were happy it came with the model; but that is something we can solve on an a la carter basis.
I think we need to be in analysis mode, not advocacy mode, as we work through this.
On Sunday, October 18, 2015, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
And it should not. It is clear now that MEM was just a make weight proposal to "triangulate" CCWG so that the Board got the weak Designator model. No inspection rights and no budget oversight means Board independence. Very canny by the Board -- almost like MEM was a chimera. I hope we don't fall for the ploy.
-- Sent from myMail app for Android
Sunday, 18 October 2015, 06:16PM -04:00 from Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','el@lisse.na');>>:
But can someone confirm that the CCWG Accountability is proposing Designator or Sole Designator?
My understanding is that it does not.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 18 Oct 2015, at 23:05, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote:
Hello All,
We understand that Bruce Tonkin, in his Liaison capacity, will be in a position to provide an update of the Board's views on Monday during our session. I can confirm that during this meeting, we informed the co-chairs that I would make a statement on Monday, and that considering the progress made on other areas, the Board was prepared to consider the Designator or Sole Designator models as outlined during the Friday and Saturday CCWG sessions.
See you all tomorrow.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
ICANN Board liaison to the CCWG
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
My recollection is that our last action was to task the Saturday breakout groups with looking at specific issues such as decision making or board member removal, as they would apply to both the Community Mechanism as a Sole Member and the Community Mechanism as a Sole Designator. Alan At 18/10/2015 06:16 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
But can someone confirm that the CCWG Accountability is proposing Designator or Sole Designator?
My understanding is that it does not.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 18 Oct 2015, at 23:05, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello All,
We understand that Bruce Tonkin, in his Liaison capacity, will be in a position to provide an update of the Board's views on Monday during our session.
I can confirm that during this meeting, we informed the co-chairs that I would make a statement on Monday, and that considering the progress made on other areas, the Board was prepared to consider the Designator or Sole Designator models as outlined during the Friday and Saturday CCWG sessions.
See you all tomorrow.
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
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (8)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Bruce Tonkin -
Chartier, Mike S -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Greg Shatan -
Mathieu Weill -
Matthew Shears -
Paul Rosenzweig