Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
Hello Paul, Regarding: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en The statement still holds. The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has stated all along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait for a final proposal to raise any concerns. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
With respect Bruce, I share Anne's view that this is not accurate. The Board chair has stated unequivocally that the Board will not submit a Membership based proposal. That is contrary to the statement that the Board will submit any proposal it receives from the CCWG "as is." That is categorically ruling out one type of "as is" proposal. If you are seriously telling me that even after all this back and forth the Board actually would submit a "Membership only" based proposal to the NTIA then I would respectfully say that the Board has done a very poor job of communicating. So ... answer this question please as directly as you are willing: If, today, the CCWG having considered but declined to accept the Board's input were to submit a proposal based upon a Membership organization would the Board transmit it to the NTIA as the ICANN proposal? Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@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 -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:03 PM To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin Hello Paul, Regarding: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en The statement still holds. The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has stated all along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait for a final proposal to raise any concerns. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Paul, Perhaps the Board chair is articulating a minority viewpoint? Afterall, the Board will have to vote on the matter of sending/not sending the output of the CCWG on to NTIA. Stephen Deerhake -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:05 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin With respect Bruce, I share Anne's view that this is not accurate. The Board chair has stated unequivocally that the Board will not submit a Membership based proposal. That is contrary to the statement that the Board will submit any proposal it receives from the CCWG "as is." That is categorically ruling out one type of "as is" proposal. If you are seriously telling me that even after all this back and forth the Board actually would submit a "Membership only" based proposal to the NTIA then I would respectfully say that the Board has done a very poor job of communicating. So ... answer this question please as directly as you are willing: If, today, the CCWG having considered but declined to accept the Board's input were to submit a proposal based upon a Membership organization would the Board transmit it to the NTIA as the ICANN proposal? Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@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 -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:03 PM To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin Hello Paul, Regarding: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en The statement still holds. The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has stated all along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait for a final proposal to raise any concerns. 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
Hello Paul, I will try to be clearer on the process for submission to the NTIA: From: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter "Submission Board Report After receiving the notifications from all chartering organizations as described above, the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability shall, within 10 working days after receiving the last notification, submit to the Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors and Chairs of all the chartering organizations the CCWG-Accountability Board Report, which shall include at a minimum: a) The (Supplemental) Proposal as adopted by the CCWG-Accountability; and b) The notifications of the decisions from the chartering organizations c) Documentation of the process that was followed, including, but not limited to documenting the process of building consensus within the CCWG-Accountability and public consultations." The Board will then meet to consider the CCWG-Accountability Board Report, and decide what, if any, comments to submit with the report taking into account (a), (b), and (c) above. From: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en "When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared with the community during the development of the proposals. " The NTIA has its own decision processes with respect to their stewardship of the IANA function. I can’t comment on what their process will be. Separately the Board will need to meet to consider the implementation of recommendations from the CCWG to change the organization and bylaws. Bylaws changes are made when there is community support and when the Board believes they are in the global public interest. On 16 October 2014, in Los Angeles, the Board set out its process for considering the changes proposed in the CCWG-Accountability Board Report. The process was based on similar processes used to accept policy recommendations from the supporting organizations (SOs) that exist in the bylaws today. See agenda item 2(d): https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d I hope that is clearer. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
How is this possibly clearer? Are you going to forward them promptly, or follow the Charter and the Resolution of 10/16/14? Those are two different paths.
On Oct 10, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Paul,
I will try to be clearer on the process for submission to the NTIA:
From: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter
"Submission Board Report
After receiving the notifications from all chartering organizations as described above, the Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability shall, within 10 working days after receiving the last notification, submit to the Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors and Chairs of all the chartering organizations the CCWG-Accountability Board Report, which shall include at a minimum:
a) The (Supplemental) Proposal as adopted by the CCWG-Accountability; and
b) The notifications of the decisions from the chartering organizations
c) Documentation of the process that was followed, including, but not limited to documenting the process of building consensus within the CCWG-Accountability and public consultations."
The Board will then meet to consider the CCWG-Accountability Board Report, and decide what, if any, comments to submit with the report taking into account (a), (b), and (c) above.
From: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
"When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared with the community during the development of the proposals. "
The NTIA has its own decision processes with respect to their stewardship of the IANA function. I can’t comment on what their process will be.
Separately the Board will need to meet to consider the implementation of recommendations from the CCWG to change the organization and bylaws. Bylaws changes are made when there is community support and when the Board believes they are in the global public interest.
On 16 October 2014, in Los Angeles, the Board set out its process for considering the changes proposed in the CCWG-Accountability Board Report.
The process was based on similar processes used to accept policy recommendations from the supporting organizations (SOs) that exist in the bylaws today.
See agenda item 2(d): https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d
I hope that is clearer.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Mike,
Are you going to forward them promptly, or follow the Charter and the Resolution of 10/16/14?
We will do both. If there is any disagreement - we will include that in a note to the NTIA along with the ICG and CCWG Proposals, and then initiate a dialogue with the CCWG. We will advise the NTIA of the outcome of any such process. The NTIA could either wait for the process to conclude, or it could be that the NTIA decides that the area of disagreement is not material to the IANA stewardship. I don't wish to speculate, that is for the NTIA to decide. The aim clearly is to develop a proposal that has broad support, and avoids the need for any follow on process. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Excellent! Thank you Bruce, now I think we are all on the same page. Per the charter, I believe the Co-chairs now can modify charter accordingly, so we will have our process documented correctly (one of the deliverables). Thanks, Mike
On Oct 10, 2015, at 9:21 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Mike,
Are you going to forward them promptly, or follow the Charter and the Resolution of 10/16/14?
We will do both.
If there is any disagreement - we will include that in a note to the NTIA along with the ICG and CCWG Proposals, and then initiate a dialogue with the CCWG. We will advise the NTIA of the outcome of any such process. The NTIA could either wait for the process to conclude, or it could be that the NTIA decides that the area of disagreement is not material to the IANA stewardship. I don't wish to speculate, that is for the NTIA to decide. The aim clearly is to develop a proposal that has broad support, and avoids the need for any follow on process.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
And that, it seems to me, Bruce, is at the nub of the problem. In theory, the Board has committed to transmitting whatever the CCWG submits, but in reserving the right to negate what has been submitted with its own comments (which would, in effect, kill any proposal) it takes away with the left hand what it gives with the right. It is, as EL says, now down to who blinks first, it seems. More to the point however, whenever the Board says the first part ("we will submit whatever we get") without also saying the second part ("but we reserve the right to countermand that submittal with comments") it is misleading. Many in the community read the "we will submit" as an endorsement of the CCWG process without limitation. Leaving out the critical limitation makes statements incomplete and adversely effects communication and expectation. Thus, the Board's promise in Buenos Aires was read as more palliative than it actually is because of its reserved powers. In addition, when someone (like Senator Thune) asks the question from a practical perspective ("will the board accept") then leaving out the caveat is an omission that affirmatively obscures the reality. And then, there is the last sadder point: Which is that the Board's reservation of a right to comment even after it participates in the process and, hypothetically, has the community reject its concerns reflects a distrust of the MSM and a paternalistic attitude that suggests to me all sorts of inadequacies. If the Board's conclusion is true, then ICANN is not fit for the transition. If it is false, then the Board misreads the community badly. Either prospect is daunting Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@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 -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 9:21 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin Hello Mike,
Are you going to forward them promptly, or follow the Charter and the Resolution of 10/16/14?
We will do both. If there is any disagreement - we will include that in a note to the NTIA along with the ICG and CCWG Proposals, and then initiate a dialogue with the CCWG. We will advise the NTIA of the outcome of any such process. The NTIA could either wait for the process to conclude, or it could be that the NTIA decides that the area of disagreement is not material to the IANA stewardship. I don't wish to speculate, that is for the NTIA to decide. The aim clearly is to develop a proposal that has broad support, and avoids the need for any follow on process. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 The original impetus of this whole transition effort was to save the MSM as embodied within ICANN in the wake of the Snowden revelations. The MSM is weakened, not saved, by rejecting and rewriting its output. 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 Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 9:18 PM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin And that, it seems to me, Bruce, is at the nub of the problem. In theory, the Board has committed to transmitting whatever the CCWG submits, but in reserving the right to negate what has been submitted with its own comments (which would, in effect, kill any proposal) it takes away with the left hand what it gives with the right. It is, as EL says, now down to who blinks first, it seems. More to the point however, whenever the Board says the first part ("we will submit whatever we get") without also saying the second part ("but we reserve the right to countermand that submittal with comments") it is misleading. Many in the community read the "we will submit" as an endorsement of the CCWG process without limitation. Leaving out the critical limitation makes statements incomplete and adversely effects communication and expectation. Thus, the Board's promise in Buenos Aires was read as more palliative than it actually is because of its reserved powers. In addition, when someone (like Senator Thune) asks the question from a practical perspective ("will the board accept") then leaving out the caveat is an omission that affirmatively obscures the reality. And then, there is the last sadder point: Which is that the Board's reservation of a right to comment even after it participates in the process and, hypothetically, has the community reject its concerns reflects a distrust of the MSM and a paternalistic attitude that suggests to me all sorts of inadequacies. If the Board's conclusion is true, then ICANN is not fit for the transition. If it is false, then the Board misreads the community badly. Either prospect is daunting Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@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 -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 9:21 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin Hello Mike,
Are you going to forward them promptly, or follow the Charter and the Resolution of 10/16/14?
We will do both. If there is any disagreement - we will include that in a note to the NTIA along with the ICG and CCWG Proposals, and then initiate a dialogue with the CCWG. We will advise the NTIA of the outcome of any such process. The NTIA could either wait for the process to conclude, or it could be that the NTIA decides that the area of disagreement is not material to the IANA stewardship. I don't wish to speculate, that is for the NTIA to decide. The aim clearly is to develop a proposal that has broad support, and avoids the need for any follow on process. 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 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4435/10780 - Release Date: 10/08/15
We talk a lot about "fiduciary duty" but seem to be determined to ignore it. The Board ultimately has to implement the new Bylaws that will effect the changes, whatever they are. Board members have a fiduciary duty to not do anything that they believe is against the best interests of ICANN (forgive the double negative). If they are forwarding a proposal that in their collective opinion they will not adopt, they have a moral obligation to say that ahead of time. Knowing that, I do wish there had been active Board participation a lot earlier, but we are where we are. Alan At 12/10/2015 09:18 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
And that, it seems to me, Bruce, is at the nub of the problem. In theory, the Board has committed to transmitting whatever the CCWG submits, but in reserving the right to negate what has been submitted with its own comments (which would, in effect, kill any proposal) it takes away with the left hand what it gives with the right. It is, as EL says, now down to who blinks first, it seems.
More to the point however, whenever the Board says the first part ("we will submit whatever we get") without also saying the second part ("but we reserve the right to countermand that submittal with comments") it is misleading. Many in the community read the "we will submit" as an endorsement of the CCWG process without limitation. Leaving out the critical limitation makes statements incomplete and adversely effects communication and expectation. Thus, the Board's promise in Buenos Aires was read as more palliative than it actually is because of its reserved powers.
In addition, when someone (like Senator Thune) asks the question from a practical perspective ("will the board accept") then leaving out the caveat is an omission that affirmatively obscures the reality.
And then, there is the last sadder point: Which is that the Board's reservation of a right to comment even after it participates in the process and, hypothetically, has the community reject its concerns reflects a distrust of the MSM and a paternalistic attitude that suggests to me all sorts of inadequacies. If the Board's conclusion is true, then ICANN is not fit for the transition. If it is false, then the Board misreads the community badly. Either prospect is daunting
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@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
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 9:21 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
Hello Mike,
Are you going to forward them promptly, or follow the Charter and the Resolution of 10/16/14?
We will do both.
If there is any disagreement - we will include that in a note to the NTIA along with the ICG and CCWG Proposals, and then initiate a dialogue with the CCWG. We will advise the NTIA of the outcome of any such process. The NTIA could either wait for the process to conclude, or it could be that the NTIA decides that the area of disagreement is not material to the IANA stewardship. I don't wish to speculate, that is for the NTIA to decide. The aim clearly is to develop a proposal that has broad support, and avoids the need for any follow on process.
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
The idea that the Board could rely on such duties to not accept a consensus community proposal of any of the varieties the CCWG has been developing defies belief. Jordan On 13 October 2015 at 13:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
We talk a lot about "fiduciary duty" but seem to be determined to ignore it.
The Board ultimately has to implement the new Bylaws that will effect the changes, whatever they are. Board members have a fiduciary duty to not do anything that they believe is against the best interests of ICANN (forgive the double negative). If they are forwarding a proposal that in their collective opinion they will not adopt, they have a moral obligation to say that ahead of time.
Knowing that, I do wish there had been active Board participation a lot earlier, but we are where we are.
Alan
At 12/10/2015 09:18 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
And that, it seems to me, Bruce, is at the nub of the problem. In theory, the Board has committed to transmitting whatever the CCWG submits, but in reserving the right to negate what has been submitted with its own comments (which would, in effect, kill any proposal) it takes away with the left hand what it gives with the right. It is, as EL says, now down to who blinks first, it seems.
More to the point however, whenever the Board says the first part ("we will submit whatever we get") without also saying the second part ("but we reserve the right to countermand that submittal with comments") it is misleading. Many in the community read the "we will submit" as an endorsement of the CCWG process without limitation. Leaving out the critical limitation makes statements incomplete and adversely effects communication and expectation. Thus, the Board's promise in Buenos Aires was read as more palliative than it actually is because of its reserved powers.
In addition, when someone (like Senator Thune) asks the question from a practical perspective ("will the board accept") then leaving out the caveat is an omission that affirmatively obscures the reality.
And then, there is the last sadder point: Which is that the Board's reservation of a right to comment even after it participates in the process and, hypothetically, has the community reject its concerns reflects a distrust of the MSM and a paternalistic attitude that suggests to me all sorts of inadequacies. If the Board's conclusion is true, then ICANN is not fit for the transition. If it is false, then the Board misreads the community badly. Either prospect is daunting
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@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
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 9:21 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
Hello Mike,
Are you going to forward them promptly, or follow the Charter and the Resolution of 10/16/14?
We will do both.
If there is any disagreement - we will include that in a note to the NTIA along with the ICG and CCWG Proposals, and then initiate a dialogue with the CCWG. We will advise the NTIA of the outcome of any such process. The NTIA could either wait for the process to conclude, or it could be that the NTIA decides that the area of disagreement is not material to the IANA stewardship. I don't wish to speculate, that is for the NTIA to decide. The aim clearly is to develop a proposal that has broad support, and avoids the need for any follow on process.
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *
Bruce, are you sharing your understanding or is this the Board's position? greetings On 2015-10-10 04:03, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Paul,
Regarding:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
The statement still holds.
The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has stated all along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait for a final proposal to raise any concerns.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Hello Eberhard, It is the Board position, unless we pass a resolution to change it. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sent: Monday, 12 October 2015 6:52 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: directors@omadhina.net Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin Bruce, are you sharing your understanding or is this the Board's position? greetings On 2015-10-10 04:03, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Paul,
Regarding:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
The statement still holds.
The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has stated all along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait for a final proposal to raise any concerns.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Bruce, thank you. So, in other words the CCWG can write whatever report it gets Consensus on (of its appointed members), do Public Consultations as much as it wants, and send whatever final report it gets Consensus on (of its appointed members) to the Board which will then send it unmodified to the NTIA. Which means, all this (rather expensive) nonsense in LA was unnecessary. Unless one views this from the Board's (tactical) perspective. Interesting... greetings, el On 2015-10-12 11:37, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Eberhard,
It is the Board position, unless we pass a resolution to change it.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sent: Monday, 12 October 2015 6:52 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: directors@omadhina.net Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
Bruce,
are you sharing your understanding or is this the Board's position?
greetings
On 2015-10-10 04:03, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Paul,
Regarding:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
The statement still holds.
The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has stated all along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait for a final proposal to raise any concerns.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Bruce, May you pls explain what are yiu taking about? It is difficult to get a clear understanding of your telegraphic message . Cheers Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 12 Oct 2015, at 12:03, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Bruce,
thank you.
So, in other words the CCWG can write whatever report it gets Consensus on (of its appointed members), do Public Consultations as much as it wants, and send whatever final report it gets Consensus on (of its appointed members) to the Board which will then send it unmodified to the NTIA.
Which means, all this (rather expensive) nonsense in LA was unnecessary.
Unless one views this from the Board's (tactical) perspective.
Interesting...
greetings, el
On 2015-10-12 11:37, Bruce Tonkin wrote: Hello Eberhard,
It is the Board position, unless we pass a resolution to change it.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sent: Monday, 12 October 2015 6:52 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: directors@omadhina.net Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
Bruce,
are you sharing your understanding or is this the Board's position?
greetings
On 2015-10-10 04:03, Bruce Tonkin wrote: Hello Paul,
Regarding:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
The statement still holds.
The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has stated all along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait for a final proposal to raise any concerns.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Forgive me for the rather direct question Bruce but has the board discussed tabling such a resolution (Rescinding or modifying the previous board resolution)? -jg ________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Sent: 12 October 2015 10:37:58 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin Hello Eberhard, It is the Board position, unless we pass a resolution to change it. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sent: Monday, 12 October 2015 6:52 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: directors@omadhina.net Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin Bruce, are you sharing your understanding or is this the Board's position? greetings On 2015-10-10 04:03, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Paul,
Regarding:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
The statement still holds.
The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has stated all along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait for a final proposal to raise any concerns.
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
Hello James,
Forgive me for the rather direct question Bruce but has the board discussed tabling such a resolution (Rescinding or modifying the previous board resolution)?
No. We are focussed on trying to find solutions that all in the community can support. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
participants (10)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Bruce Tonkin -
Chartier, Mike S -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
James Gannon -
Jordan Carter -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Corwin -
Stephen Deerhake