Communique - revised - any feedback by midnight Argentina time
Hi all Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this. I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading. *Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of sending)*. cheers Jordan *Members and participants of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) met in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on June 19, 2015.* The CCWG face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina, was attended in-person by XXXX members and participants, as well as by a number of participants and observers that joined the meeting remotely using the virtual meeting room. XXX Advisors also participated. The group discussed the summaries it had earlier prepared of the comments received from the community during the first public comment period on its initial draft report ( https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-201...) and can report the following: Broad support was received for the overall accountability architecture proposed, based on on 4 building blocks, i.e. an empowered community, the Board, the Bylaws and the Independent Review Process. Most comments considered the proposals would be improvements to ICANN’s current accountability mechanisms. Several commenters recommended the CCWG take a more detailed look at the accountability of the community itself (the SOs and ACs) and also to ensure that ICANN is accountable to all stakeholders, including those outside ICANN. While most commenters expressed support for the recommendations, some expressed concerns primarily regarding implementation details, legal implications and complexity, as well as on the underlying costs and risks associated with the proposals. The CCWG values the input received so far and will continue working to refine its initial draft report. While encouraged by the support received on the overall approach, the group acknowledges the concerns expressed and will give due consideration to suggestions and concerns as it develops a revised proposal in preparation for the upcoming second public comment period. With regards to the community empowerment mechanism, the CCWG considered various models presented in the meeting and acknowledged commonality of views with regards to expectations of such models, including the need to set up mutual accountability, and enhancements to openness and diversity. In particular, a number of commenters have raised concerns with the reference model. In that model, SOs and ACs would be required to set up separate legal entities, such as formally registering unincorporated associations, as their legal vehicle to exercise community powers. Feedback suggested that the community sees this model as too complex. The CCWG has analyzed these comments carefully and will now focus its work on a refined model. This fresh approach, provisionally called the Empowered SO/AC model, gives the community comparable authority while not adding legal entities separate from the SOs and ACs. The CCWG also considered public comments related to the dependencies with the CWG-Stewardship's final proposal. As the CWG’s proposal is under consideration by Chartering organizations, the CCWG notes that each of the items that the CWG has identified as critical to its proposal received overall support from the community. None of the comments suggested that CWG requirements could or should not be met. The CCWG will share these outcomes and considerations with the various groups and communities during ICANN 53. The group looks forward to continuing the fruitful exchanges that inform further deliberations towards a second round of public comment, which is expected to be published by the end of July. *Note*: video summaries of the basic accountability approach are available: - English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h8i2exC6HA - French: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YodtRRNymkU - Spanish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLALPEOlrHk) -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *
I am still at GRU waiting for TK15 but this sounds like the mess it us. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 19, 2015, at 17:10, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this.
I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading.
Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of sending).
cheers Jordan
Members and participants of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) met in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on June 19, 2015.
The CCWG face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina, was attended in-person by XXXX members and participants, as well as by a number of participants and observers that joined the meeting remotely using the virtual meeting room. XXX Advisors also participated.
The group discussed the summaries it had earlier prepared of the comments received from the community during the first public comment period on its initial draft report (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-201...) and can report the following:
Broad support was received for the overall accountability architecture proposed, based on on 4 building blocks, i.e. an empowered community, the Board, the Bylaws and the Independent Review Process.
Most comments considered the proposals would be improvements to ICANN’s current accountability mechanisms.
Several commenters recommended the CCWG take a more detailed look at the accountability of the community itself (the SOs and ACs) and also to ensure that ICANN is accountable to all stakeholders, including those outside ICANN.
While most commenters expressed support for the recommendations, some expressed concerns primarily regarding implementation details, legal implications and complexity, as well as on the underlying costs and risks associated with the proposals.
The CCWG values the input received so far and will continue working to refine its initial draft report.
While encouraged by the support received on the overall approach, the group acknowledges the concerns expressed and will give due consideration to suggestions and concerns as it develops a revised proposal in preparation for the upcoming second public comment period.
With regards to the community empowerment mechanism, the CCWG considered various models presented in the meeting and acknowledged commonality of views with regards to expectations of such models, including the need to set up mutual accountability, and enhancements to openness and diversity.
In particular, a number of commenters have raised concerns with the reference model. In that model, SOs and ACs would be required to set up separate legal entities, such as formally registering unincorporated associations, as their legal vehicle to exercise community powers. Feedback suggested that the community sees this model as too complex. The CCWG has analyzed these comments carefully and will now focus its work on a refined model. This fresh approach, provisionally called the Empowered SO/AC model, gives the community comparable authority while not adding legal entities separate from the SOs and ACs.
The CCWG also considered public comments related to the dependencies with the CWG-Stewardship's final proposal. As the CWG’s proposal is under consideration by Chartering organizations, the CCWG notes that each of the items that the CWG has identified as critical to its proposal received overall support from the community. None of the comments suggested that CWG requirements could or should not be met.
The CCWG will share these outcomes and considerations with the various groups and communities during ICANN 53. The group looks forward to continuing the fruitful exchanges that inform further deliberations towards a second round of public comment, which is expected to be published by the end of July.
Note: video summaries of the basic accountability approach are available:
- English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h8i2exC6HA
- French: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YodtRRNymkU
- Spanish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLALPEOlrHk)
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
<Draft Comunique v2.docx> <Draft Comunique v2.pdf> <Draft Comunique v2 clean.docx> <Draft Comunique v2 clean.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Looks good to me Jordan. -James From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jordan Carter Date: Friday 19 June 2015 17:10 To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Communique - revised - any feedback by midnight Argentina time Hi all Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this. I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading. Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of sending). cheers Jordan Members and participants of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) met in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on June 19, 2015. The CCWG face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina, was attended in-person by XXXX members and participants, as well as by a number of participants and observers that joined the meeting remotely using the virtual meeting room. XXX Advisors also participated. The group discussed the summaries it had earlier prepared of the comments received from the community during the first public comment period on its initial draft report (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-201...) and can report the following: Broad support was received for the overall accountability architecture proposed, based on on 4 building blocks, i.e. an empowered community, the Board, the Bylaws and the Independent Review Process. Most comments considered the proposals would be improvements to ICANN’s current accountability mechanisms. Several commenters recommended the CCWG take a more detailed look at the accountability of the community itself (the SOs and ACs) and also to ensure that ICANN is accountable to all stakeholders, including those outside ICANN. While most commenters expressed support for the recommendations, some expressed concerns primarily regarding implementation details, legal implications and complexity, as well as on the underlying costs and risks associated with the proposals. The CCWG values the input received so far and will continue working to refine its initial draft report. While encouraged by the support received on the overall approach, the group acknowledges the concerns expressed and will give due consideration to suggestions and concerns as it develops a revised proposal in preparation for the upcoming second public comment period. With regards to the community empowerment mechanism, the CCWG considered various models presented in the meeting and acknowledged commonality of views with regards to expectations of such models, including the need to set up mutual accountability, and enhancements to openness and diversity. In particular, a number of commenters have raised concerns with the reference model. In that model, SOs and ACs would be required to set up separate legal entities, such as formally registering unincorporated associations, as their legal vehicle to exercise community powers. Feedback suggested that the community sees this model as too complex. The CCWG has analyzed these comments carefully and will now focus its work on a refined model. This fresh approach, provisionally called the Empowered SO/AC model, gives the community comparable authority while not adding legal entities separate from the SOs and ACs. The CCWG also considered public comments related to the dependencies with the CWG-Stewardship's final proposal. As the CWG’s proposal is under consideration by Chartering organizations, the CCWG notes that each of the items that the CWG has identified as critical to its proposal received overall support from the community. None of the comments suggested that CWG requirements could or should not be met. The CCWG will share these outcomes and considerations with the various groups and communities during ICANN 53. The group looks forward to continuing the fruitful exchanges that inform further deliberations towards a second round of public comment, which is expected to be published by the end of July. Note: video summaries of the basic accountability approach are available: - English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h8i2exC6HA - French: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YodtRRNymkU - Spanish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLALPEOlrHk) -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet
When EXACTLY was this drafted? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 19, 2015, at 17:10, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this.
I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading.
Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of sending).
cheers Jordan
Members and participants of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) met in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on June 19, 2015.
The CCWG face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina, was attended in-person by XXXX members and participants, as well as by a number of participants and observers that joined the meeting remotely using the virtual meeting room. XXX Advisors also participated.
The group discussed the summaries it had earlier prepared of the comments received from the community during the first public comment period on its initial draft report (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-201...) and can report the following:
Broad support was received for the overall accountability architecture proposed, based on on 4 building blocks, i.e. an empowered community, the Board, the Bylaws and the Independent Review Process.
Most comments considered the proposals would be improvements to ICANN’s current accountability mechanisms.
Several commenters recommended the CCWG take a more detailed look at the accountability of the community itself (the SOs and ACs) and also to ensure that ICANN is accountable to all stakeholders, including those outside ICANN.
While most commenters expressed support for the recommendations, some expressed concerns primarily regarding implementation details, legal implications and complexity, as well as on the underlying costs and risks associated with the proposals.
The CCWG values the input received so far and will continue working to refine its initial draft report.
While encouraged by the support received on the overall approach, the group acknowledges the concerns expressed and will give due consideration to suggestions and concerns as it develops a revised proposal in preparation for the upcoming second public comment period.
With regards to the community empowerment mechanism, the CCWG considered various models presented in the meeting and acknowledged commonality of views with regards to expectations of such models, including the need to set up mutual accountability, and enhancements to openness and diversity.
In particular, a number of commenters have raised concerns with the reference model. In that model, SOs and ACs would be required to set up separate legal entities, such as formally registering unincorporated associations, as their legal vehicle to exercise community powers. Feedback suggested that the community sees this model as too complex. The CCWG has analyzed these comments carefully and will now focus its work on a refined model. This fresh approach, provisionally called the Empowered SO/AC model, gives the community comparable authority while not adding legal entities separate from the SOs and ACs.
The CCWG also considered public comments related to the dependencies with the CWG-Stewardship's final proposal. As the CWG’s proposal is under consideration by Chartering organizations, the CCWG notes that each of the items that the CWG has identified as critical to its proposal received overall support from the community. None of the comments suggested that CWG requirements could or should not be met.
The CCWG will share these outcomes and considerations with the various groups and communities during ICANN 53. The group looks forward to continuing the fruitful exchanges that inform further deliberations towards a second round of public comment, which is expected to be published by the end of July.
Note: video summaries of the basic accountability approach are available:
- English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h8i2exC6HA
- French: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YodtRRNymkU
- Spanish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLALPEOlrHk)
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
<Draft Comunique v2.docx> <Draft Comunique v2.pdf> <Draft Comunique v2 clean.docx> <Draft Comunique v2 clean.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thank you for the Draft Communique For the review of what we have done and for having a fresh look to the process, we need to act more openly, democratically and neutrally.
From the very beginning I warned the group that the Proposed model with UA does not work , I asked to consider something more practical , less complex and workable. Unfortunately ,I was pushed to be silent as some people did not like the vision that I had with respect to the workability of that method /concept . Even at some meeting , calls ,I was unfairly and unexpectedly interrupted at various occasion and was not allowed to freely express my view .The above course of action was not a healthy approach. I strongly suggest that we seriously change our working method in particular ,the role of the chair and few other participants in order to allow every body to freely and openly expresses himself or herself .The role of the chair should be limited to just conduct the meeting in a friendly, fair and democratic manner. We need to respect each and every person during the debate We have only one more opportunity and must use it properly . Good luck Best Regards Kavouss
2015-06-20 4:07 GMT+02:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com>:
When EXACTLY was this drafted?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 19, 2015, at 17:10, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this.
I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading.
*Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of sending)*.
cheers Jordan
*Members and participants of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) met in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on June 19, 2015.*
The CCWG face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina, was attended in-person by XXXX members and participants, as well as by a number of participants and observers that joined the meeting remotely using the virtual meeting room. XXX Advisors also participated.
The group discussed the summaries it had earlier prepared of the comments received from the community during the first public comment period on its initial draft report ( https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-201...) and can report the following:
Broad support was received for the overall accountability architecture proposed, based on on 4 building blocks, i.e. an empowered community, the Board, the Bylaws and the Independent Review Process.
Most comments considered the proposals would be improvements to ICANN’s current accountability mechanisms.
Several commenters recommended the CCWG take a more detailed look at the accountability of the community itself (the SOs and ACs) and also to ensure that ICANN is accountable to all stakeholders, including those outside ICANN.
While most commenters expressed support for the recommendations, some expressed concerns primarily regarding implementation details, legal implications and complexity, as well as on the underlying costs and risks associated with the proposals.
The CCWG values the input received so far and will continue working to refine its initial draft report.
While encouraged by the support received on the overall approach, the group acknowledges the concerns expressed and will give due consideration to suggestions and concerns as it develops a revised proposal in preparation for the upcoming second public comment period.
With regards to the community empowerment mechanism, the CCWG considered various models presented in the meeting and acknowledged commonality of views with regards to expectations of such models, including the need to set up mutual accountability, and enhancements to openness and diversity.
In particular, a number of commenters have raised concerns with the reference model. In that model, SOs and ACs would be required to set up separate legal entities, such as formally registering unincorporated associations, as their legal vehicle to exercise community powers. Feedback suggested that the community sees this model as too complex. The CCWG has analyzed these comments carefully and will now focus its work on a refined model. This fresh approach, provisionally called the Empowered SO/AC model, gives the community comparable authority while not adding legal entities separate from the SOs and ACs.
The CCWG also considered public comments related to the dependencies with the CWG-Stewardship's final proposal. As the CWG’s proposal is under consideration by Chartering organizations, the CCWG notes that each of the items that the CWG has identified as critical to its proposal received overall support from the community. None of the comments suggested that CWG requirements could or should not be met.
The CCWG will share these outcomes and considerations with the various groups and communities during ICANN 53. The group looks forward to continuing the fruitful exchanges that inform further deliberations towards a second round of public comment, which is expected to be published by the end of July.
*Note*: video summaries of the basic accountability approach are available:
- English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h8i2exC6HA
- French: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YodtRRNymkU
- Spanish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLALPEOlrHk)
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
*A better world through a better Internet *
<Draft Comunique v2.docx>
<Draft Comunique v2.pdf>
<Draft Comunique v2 clean.docx>
<Draft Comunique v2 clean.pdf>
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Co-Chairs, please take note that I am willing to volunteer as the Rapporteur for the Minority Opinion(s). greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 20, 2015, at 07:40, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for the Draft Communique For the review of what we have done and for having a fresh look to the process, we need to act more openly, democratically and neutrally. From the very beginning I warned the group that the Proposed model with UA does not work , I asked to consider something more practical , less complex and workable. Unfortunately ,I was pushed to be silent as some people did not like the vision that I had with respect to the workability of that method /concept . Even at some meeting , calls ,I was unfairly and unexpectedly interrupted at various occasion and was not allowed to freely express my view .The above course of action was not a healthy approach. I strongly suggest that we seriously change our working method in particular ,the role of the chair and few other participants in order to allow every body to freely and openly expresses himself or herself .The role of the chair should be limited to just conduct the meeting in a friendly, fair and democratic manner. We need to respect each and every person during the debate We have only one more opportunity and must use it properly . Good luck Best Regards Kavouss
2015-06-20 4:07 GMT+02:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com>:
When EXACTLY was this drafted?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 19, 2015, at 17:10, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this.
I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading.
Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of sending).
cheers Jordan
Members and participants of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) met in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on June 19, 2015.
The CCWG face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina, was attended in-person by XXXX members and participants, as well as by a number of participants and observers that joined the meeting remotely using the virtual meeting room. XXX Advisors also participated.
The group discussed the summaries it had earlier prepared of the comments received from the community during the first public comment period on its initial draft report (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-201...) and can report the following:
Broad support was received for the overall accountability architecture proposed, based on on 4 building blocks, i.e. an empowered community, the Board, the Bylaws and the Independent Review Process.
Most comments considered the proposals would be improvements to ICANN’s current accountability mechanisms.
Several commenters recommended the CCWG take a more detailed look at the accountability of the community itself (the SOs and ACs) and also to ensure that ICANN is accountable to all stakeholders, including those outside ICANN.
While most commenters expressed support for the recommendations, some expressed concerns primarily regarding implementation details, legal implications and complexity, as well as on the underlying costs and risks associated with the proposals.
The CCWG values the input received so far and will continue working to refine its initial draft report.
While encouraged by the support received on the overall approach, the group acknowledges the concerns expressed and will give due consideration to suggestions and concerns as it develops a revised proposal in preparation for the upcoming second public comment period.
With regards to the community empowerment mechanism, the CCWG considered various models presented in the meeting and acknowledged commonality of views with regards to expectations of such models, including the need to set up mutual accountability, and enhancements to openness and diversity.
In particular, a number of commenters have raised concerns with the reference model. In that model, SOs and ACs would be required to set up separate legal entities, such as formally registering unincorporated associations, as their legal vehicle to exercise community powers. Feedback suggested that the community sees this model as too complex. The CCWG has analyzed these comments carefully and will now focus its work on a refined model. This fresh approach, provisionally called the Empowered SO/AC model, gives the community comparable authority while not adding legal entities separate from the SOs and ACs.
The CCWG also considered public comments related to the dependencies with the CWG-Stewardship's final proposal. As the CWG’s proposal is under consideration by Chartering organizations, the CCWG notes that each of the items that the CWG has identified as critical to its proposal received overall support from the community. None of the comments suggested that CWG requirements could or should not be met.
The CCWG will share these outcomes and considerations with the various groups and communities during ICANN 53. The group looks forward to continuing the fruitful exchanges that inform further deliberations towards a second round of public comment, which is expected to be published by the end of July.
Note: video summaries of the basic accountability approach are available:
- English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h8i2exC6HA
- French: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YodtRRNymkU
- Spanish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLALPEOlrHk)
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
<Draft Comunique v2.docx> <Draft Comunique v2.pdf> <Draft Comunique v2 clean.docx> <Draft Comunique v2 clean.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Doctor, Minority opinion should be fully and duly considered and be taken into account like any other opinion We welcome you for the initiative Regards Kavouss 2015-06-20 13:06 GMT+02:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
please take note that I am willing to volunteer as the Rapporteur for the Minority Opinion(s).
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 20, 2015, at 07:40, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for the Draft Communique For the review of what we have done and for having a fresh look to the process, we need to act more openly, democratically and neutrally. From the very beginning I warned the group that the Proposed model with UA does not work , I asked to consider something more practical , less complex and workable. Unfortunately ,I was pushed to be silent as some people did not like the vision that I had with respect to the workability of that method /concept . Even at some meeting , calls ,I was unfairly and unexpectedly interrupted at various occasion and was not allowed to freely express my view .The above course of action was not a healthy approach. I strongly suggest that we seriously change our working method in particular ,the role of the chair and few other participants in order to allow every body to freely and openly expresses himself or herself .The role of the chair should be limited to just conduct the meeting in a friendly, fair and democratic manner. We need to respect each and every person during the debate We have only one more opportunity and must use it properly . Good luck Best Regards Kavouss
2015-06-20 4:07 GMT+02:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com>:
When EXACTLY was this drafted?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 19, 2015, at 17:10, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this.
I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading.
*Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of sending)*.
cheers Jordan
*Members and participants of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) met in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on June 19, 2015.*
The CCWG face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina, was attended in-person by XXXX members and participants, as well as by a number of participants and observers that joined the meeting remotely using the virtual meeting room. XXX Advisors also participated.
The group discussed the summaries it had earlier prepared of the comments received from the community during the first public comment period on its initial draft report ( https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-201...) and can report the following:
Broad support was received for the overall accountability architecture proposed, based on on 4 building blocks, i.e. an empowered community, the Board, the Bylaws and the Independent Review Process.
Most comments considered the proposals would be improvements to ICANN’s current accountability mechanisms.
Several commenters recommended the CCWG take a more detailed look at the accountability of the community itself (the SOs and ACs) and also to ensure that ICANN is accountable to all stakeholders, including those outside ICANN.
While most commenters expressed support for the recommendations, some expressed concerns primarily regarding implementation details, legal implications and complexity, as well as on the underlying costs and risks associated with the proposals.
The CCWG values the input received so far and will continue working to refine its initial draft report.
While encouraged by the support received on the overall approach, the group acknowledges the concerns expressed and will give due consideration to suggestions and concerns as it develops a revised proposal in preparation for the upcoming second public comment period.
With regards to the community empowerment mechanism, the CCWG considered various models presented in the meeting and acknowledged commonality of views with regards to expectations of such models, including the need to set up mutual accountability, and enhancements to openness and diversity.
In particular, a number of commenters have raised concerns with the reference model. In that model, SOs and ACs would be required to set up separate legal entities, such as formally registering unincorporated associations, as their legal vehicle to exercise community powers. Feedback suggested that the community sees this model as too complex. The CCWG has analyzed these comments carefully and will now focus its work on a refined model. This fresh approach, provisionally called the Empowered SO/AC model, gives the community comparable authority while not adding legal entities separate from the SOs and ACs.
The CCWG also considered public comments related to the dependencies with the CWG-Stewardship's final proposal. As the CWG’s proposal is under consideration by Chartering organizations, the CCWG notes that each of the items that the CWG has identified as critical to its proposal received overall support from the community. None of the comments suggested that CWG requirements could or should not be met.
The CCWG will share these outcomes and considerations with the various groups and communities during ICANN 53. The group looks forward to continuing the fruitful exchanges that inform further deliberations towards a second round of public comment, which is expected to be published by the end of July.
*Note*: video summaries of the basic accountability approach are available:
- English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h8i2exC6HA
- French: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YodtRRNymkU
- Spanish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLALPEOlrHk)
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
*A better world through a better Internet *
<Draft Comunique v2.docx>
<Draft Comunique v2.pdf>
<Draft Comunique v2 clean.docx>
<Draft Comunique v2 clean.pdf>
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Co-Chairs, I have not received a substantive response to my request. My understanding is that it was drafted before the meeting was finished, over lunch. I demand an answer. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jun 19, 2015, at 23:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> wrote:
When EXACTLY was this drafted?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 19, 2015, at 17:10, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this.
I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading.
Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of sending).
cheers Jordan
[...]
Dear Eberhard, This was drafted before the end of our working day session, read out loud to attendants and circulated for feedback. Best regards, León
El 21/06/2015, a las 9:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have not received a substantive response to my request.
My understanding is that it was drafted before the meeting was finished, over lunch.
I demand an answer.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jun 19, 2015, at 23:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> wrote:
When EXACTLY was this drafted?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 19, 2015, at 17:10, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
Hi all
Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this.
I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading.
Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of sending).
cheers Jordan
[...] _______________________________________________ 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>
So what I hear that it was drafted by the Co-Chairs during lunch is correct. Never mind that it was not deliberated by the plenum. Since the statement uses past tense it is at best misleading. So, for the record, I object against the statement. greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 21, 2015, at 09:46, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
This was drafted before the end of our working day session, read out loud to attendants and circulated for feedback.
Best regards,
León
El 21/06/2015, a las 9:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have not received a substantive response to my request.
My understanding is that it was drafted before the meeting was finished, over lunch.
I demand an answer.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jun 19, 2015, at 23:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> wrote:
When EXACTLY was this drafted?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 19, 2015, at 17:10, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this.
I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading.
Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of sending).
cheers Jordan
[...] _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
That is not correct. It was read out loud, circulated for feedback and then published. Objection noted. Best regards, León
El 21/06/2015, a las 11:57, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> escribió:
So what I hear that it was drafted by the Co-Chairs during lunch is correct. Never mind that it was not deliberated by the plenum.
Since the statement uses past tense it is at best misleading.
So, for the record, I object against the statement.
greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 21, 2015, at 09:46, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
This was drafted before the end of our working day session, read out loud to attendants and circulated for feedback.
Best regards,
León
El 21/06/2015, a las 9:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have not received a substantive response to my request.
My understanding is that it was drafted before the meeting was finished, over lunch.
I demand an answer.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jun 19, 2015, at 23:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> wrote:
When EXACTLY was this drafted?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 19, 2015, at 17:10, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
Hi all
Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this.
I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading.
Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of sending).
cheers Jordan
[...] _______________________________________________ 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
Reading out loud is not deliberating. So It is correct. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 21, 2015, at 12:01, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
That is not correct. It was read out loud, circulated for feedback and then published.
Objection noted.
Best regards,
León
El 21/06/2015, a las 11:57, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> escribió:
So what I hear that it was drafted by the Co-Chairs during lunch is correct. Never mind that it was not deliberated by the plenum.
Since the statement uses past tense it is at best misleading.
So, for the record, I object against the statement.
greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 21, 2015, at 09:46, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
This was drafted before the end of our working day session, read out loud to attendants and circulated for feedback.
Best regards,
León
El 21/06/2015, a las 9:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have not received a substantive response to my request.
My understanding is that it was drafted before the meeting was finished, over lunch.
I demand an answer.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jun 19, 2015, at 23:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> wrote:
When EXACTLY was this drafted?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 19, 2015, at 17:10, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this.
I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading.
Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of sending).
cheers Jordan
[...] _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Co-Chairs I wish to thank your collleague Leon very much for admitting in person that it was not deliberated. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 21, 2015, at 12:06, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> wrote:
Reading out loud is not deliberating.
So It is correct.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 21, 2015, at 12:01, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
That is not correct. It was read out loud, circulated for feedback and then published.
Objection noted.
Best regards,
León
El 21/06/2015, a las 11:57, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> escribió:
So what I hear that it was drafted by the Co-Chairs during lunch is correct. Never mind that it was not deliberated by the plenum.
Since the statement uses past tense it is at best misleading.
So, for the record, I object against the statement.
greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 21, 2015, at 09:46, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
This was drafted before the end of our working day session, read out loud to attendants and circulated for feedback.
Best regards,
León
El 21/06/2015, a las 9:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have not received a substantive response to my request.
My understanding is that it was drafted before the meeting was finished, over lunch.
I demand an answer.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jun 19, 2015, at 23:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> wrote:
When EXACTLY was this drafted?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
> On Jun 19, 2015, at 17:10, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote: > > Hi all > > Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this. > > I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading. > > Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of sending). > > cheers > Jordan
[...] _______________________________________________ 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
Dear all I haven't seen a communique written live in front of a meeting since a conference we ran in 2010. I suppose it does happen sometimes, but would welcome an item for our discussion at our next meeting whether we wish to adopt the same approach, or whether people are happy when such writing is required to have people draft it, and then discussion at the meetings. Seems to me a broad based live drafting standard would considerably delay our work, but a shared understanding of what we would like to see in place could be useful. best Jordan On 21 June 2015 at 12:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs
I wish to thank your collleague Leon very much for admitting in person that it was not deliberated.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 21, 2015, at 12:06, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> wrote:
Reading out loud is not deliberating.
So It is correct.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 21, 2015, at 12:01, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
That is not correct. It was read out loud, circulated for feedback and then published.
Objection noted.
Best regards,
León
El 21/06/2015, a las 11:57, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> escribió:
So what I hear that it was drafted by the Co-Chairs during lunch is correct. Never mind that it was not deliberated by the plenum.
Since the statement uses past tense it is at best misleading.
So, for the record, I object against the statement.
greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 21, 2015, at 09:46, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
This was drafted before the end of our working day session, read out loud to attendants and circulated for feedback.
Best regards,
León
El 21/06/2015, a las 9:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have not received a substantive response to my request.
My understanding is that it was drafted before the meeting was finished, over lunch.
I demand an answer.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jun 19, 2015, at 23:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> wrote:
When EXACTLY was this drafted?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 19, 2015, at 17:10, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this.
I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading.
*Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of sending)*.
cheers Jordan
[...] _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordinating Group (ICG) drafted its communique live and in-person during its first meeting last July. I recall because I held the pen (keyboard). It’s not that unusual. That said, I support Jordan’s suggestion that we discuss the practice during our next full meeting of the CCWG. Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 12:35 PM To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse Cc: List ccTLD Community; cctldworld@icann.org; directors@omadhina.net; <ccnso-members@icann.org>; CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccTLDcommunity] Communique - revised - any feedback by midnight Argentina time Dear all I haven't seen a communique written live in front of a meeting since a conference we ran in 2010. I suppose it does happen sometimes, but would welcome an item for our discussion at our next meeting whether we wish to adopt the same approach, or whether people are happy when such writing is required to have people draft it, and then discussion at the meetings. Seems to me a broad based live drafting standard would considerably delay our work, but a shared understanding of what we would like to see in place could be useful. best Jordan On 21 June 2015 at 12:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs I wish to thank your collleague Leon very much for admitting in person that it was not deliberated. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s On Jun 21, 2015, at 12:06, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> wrote: Reading out loud is not deliberating. So It is correct. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s On Jun 21, 2015, at 12:01, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: That is not correct. It was read out loud, circulated for feedback and then published. Objection noted. Best regards, León El 21/06/2015, a las 11:57, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> escribió: So what I hear that it was drafted by the Co-Chairs during lunch is correct. Never mind that it was not deliberated by the plenum. Since the statement uses past tense it is at best misleading. So, for the record, I object against the statement. greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s On Jun 21, 2015, at 09:46, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Dear Eberhard, This was drafted before the end of our working day session, read out loud to attendants and circulated for feedback. Best regards, León El 21/06/2015, a las 9:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> escribió: Dear Co-Chairs, I have not received a substantive response to my request. My understanding is that it was drafted before the meeting was finished, over lunch. I demand an answer. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On Jun 19, 2015, at 23:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> wrote: When EXACTLY was this drafted? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s On Jun 19, 2015, at 17:10, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: Hi all Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this. I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading. Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of sending). cheers Jordan [...] _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org> -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet
Eberhard, This is a blunt misrepresentation and manipulation of my reply. Not to mention that you have copied lists to which I am not entitled to post to my detriment. Saludos, León Enviado desde el móvil. Disculpa brevedad y errores tipográficos.
El jun 21, 2015, a las 12:26 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs
I wish to thank your collleague Leon very much for admitting in person that it was not deliberated.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 21, 2015, at 12:06, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> wrote:
Reading out loud is not deliberating.
So It is correct.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 21, 2015, at 12:01, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
That is not correct. It was read out loud, circulated for feedback and then published.
Objection noted.
Best regards,
León
El 21/06/2015, a las 11:57, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> escribió:
So what I hear that it was drafted by the Co-Chairs during lunch is correct. Never mind that it was not deliberated by the plenum.
Since the statement uses past tense it is at best misleading.
So, for the record, I object against the statement.
greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 21, 2015, at 09:46, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
This was drafted before the end of our working day session, read out loud to attendants and circulated for feedback.
Best regards,
León
El 21/06/2015, a las 9:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have not received a substantive response to my request.
My understanding is that it was drafted before the meeting was finished, over lunch.
I demand an answer.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
> On Jun 19, 2015, at 23:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> wrote: > > When EXACTLY was this drafted? > > el > > -- > Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s > > >> On Jun 19, 2015, at 17:10, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote: >> >> Hi all >> >> Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this. >> >> I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading. >> >> Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of sending). >> >> cheers >> Jordan
[...] _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Co-Chairs, I request you seek a retraction and formal apology from our colleague for this very unfortunate, but perhaps not surprising, turn of events. Thanks and regards, Keith On Jun 21, 2015, at 1:27 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Eberhard, This is a blunt misrepresentation and manipulation of my reply. Not to mention that you have copied lists to which I am not entitled to post to my detriment. Saludos, León Enviado desde el móvil. Disculpa brevedad y errores tipográficos. El jun 21, 2015, a las 12:26 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> escribió: Dear Co-Chairs I wish to thank your collleague Leon very much for admitting in person that it was not deliberated. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s On Jun 21, 2015, at 12:06, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> wrote: Reading out loud is not deliberating. So It is correct. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s On Jun 21, 2015, at 12:01, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: That is not correct. It was read out loud, circulated for feedback and then published. Objection noted. Best regards, León El 21/06/2015, a las 11:57, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> escribió: So what I hear that it was drafted by the Co-Chairs during lunch is correct. Never mind that it was not deliberated by the plenum. Since the statement uses past tense it is at best misleading. So, for the record, I object against the statement. greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s On Jun 21, 2015, at 09:46, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Dear Eberhard, This was drafted before the end of our working day session, read out loud to attendants and circulated for feedback. Best regards, León El 21/06/2015, a las 9:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> escribió: Dear Co-Chairs, I have not received a substantive response to my request. My understanding is that it was drafted before the meeting was finished, over lunch. I demand an answer. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On Jun 19, 2015, at 23:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> wrote: When EXACTLY was this drafted? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s On Jun 19, 2015, at 17:10, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: Hi all Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this. I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading. Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of sending). cheers Jordan [...] _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Co-Chairs, Please note that your Co-Chair approached me in the lobby and stated: "You were right about the statement, it was not deliberated". Hence, I am most certainly not the one misrepresenting anything. Please inform our colleague that he may seek whatever he wants, which he does all the time anyway, but fortunately there have been witnesses, of which he was not one. Please also inform your Co-Chair that I have not singled his last reply out, and that since CCWG Accountability has been included in all correspondence in this regards and since I will ensure that all his future responses hereto will be forwarded to the mailing lists there is no substance to his comments. As usual. greetings, el On 2015-06-21 13:37 , Drazek, Keith wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I request you seek a retraction and formal apology from our colleague for this very unfortunate, but perhaps not surprising, turn of events.
Thanks and regards, Keith
On Jun 21, 2015, at 1:27 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Eberhard,
This is a blunt misrepresentation and manipulation of my reply. Not to mention that you have copied lists to which I am not entitled to post to my detriment.
Saludos,
León
Enviado desde el móvil. Disculpa brevedad y errores tipográficos.
El jun 21, 2015, a las 12:26 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs
I wish to thank your collleague Leon very much for admitting in person that it was not deliberated.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 21, 2015, at 12:06, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> wrote:
Reading out loud is not deliberating.
So It is correct.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 21, 2015, at 12:01, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
That is not correct. It was read out loud, circulated for feedback and then published.
Objection noted.
Best regards,
León
El 21/06/2015, a las 11:57, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> escribió:
So what I hear that it was drafted by the Co-Chairs during lunch is correct. Never mind that it was not deliberated by the plenum.
Since the statement uses past tense it is at best misleading.
So, for the record, I object against the statement.
greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 21, 2015, at 09:46, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
> Dear Eberhard, > > This was drafted before the end of our working day session, read > out loud to attendants and circulated for feedback. > > > Best regards, > > > León > >> El 21/06/2015, a las 9:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na >> <mailto:el@lisse.na>> escribió: >> >> Dear Co-Chairs, >> >> I have not received a substantive response to my request. >> >> My understanding is that it was drafted before the meeting was >> finished, over lunch. >> >> I demand an answer. >> >> el >> -- >> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini >> >> On Jun 19, 2015, at 23:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse >> <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>> When EXACTLY was this drafted? >>> >>> el >>> >>> -- >>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s >>> >>> >>> On Jun 19, 2015, at 17:10, Jordan Carter >>> <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all >>>> >>>> Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, >>>> and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this. >>>> >>>> I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading. >>>> >>>> *Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by >>>> midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of >>>> sending)*. >>>> >>>> cheers >>>> Jordan >> >> [...] >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
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
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse 4-5 St Annes Walk, Alderney <directors@omadhina.net> Guernsey, GY9 3JZ Omadhina Internet Services Ltd British Channel Islands
Eberhard, Again. This is a blunt misrepresentation of facts and manipulation of what I said. I did approach you to say hi as a common courtesy to anyone I meet and I reiterated to you that the statement was drafted, openly read out loud, circulated for feedback and then published. To that you replied, “Then I am right, that is not a deliberation and since you don’t give a shit about process, I have objected to it on the list”. Those are the facts. Best regards, León
El 21/06/2015, a las 15:42, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Please note that your Co-Chair approached me in the lobby and stated: "You were right about the statement, it was not deliberated".
Hence, I am most certainly not the one misrepresenting anything.
Please inform our colleague that he may seek whatever he wants, which he does all the time anyway, but fortunately there have been witnesses, of which he was not one.
Please also inform your Co-Chair that I have not singled his last reply out, and that since CCWG Accountability has been included in all correspondence in this regards and since I will ensure that all his future responses hereto will be forwarded to the mailing lists there is no substance to his comments.
As usual.
greetings, el
On 2015-06-21 13:37 , Drazek, Keith wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I request you seek a retraction and formal apology from our colleague for this very unfortunate, but perhaps not surprising, turn of events.
Thanks and regards, Keith
On Jun 21, 2015, at 1:27 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Eberhard,
This is a blunt misrepresentation and manipulation of my reply. Not to mention that you have copied lists to which I am not entitled to post to my detriment.
Saludos,
León
Enviado desde el móvil. Disculpa brevedad y errores tipográficos.
El jun 21, 2015, a las 12:26 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs
I wish to thank your collleague Leon very much for admitting in person that it was not deliberated.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 21, 2015, at 12:06, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> wrote:
Reading out loud is not deliberating.
So It is correct.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 21, 2015, at 12:01, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
That is not correct. It was read out loud, circulated for feedback and then published.
Objection noted.
Best regards,
León
> El 21/06/2015, a las 11:57, Dr Eberhard W Lisse > <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> escribió: > > So what I hear that it was drafted by the Co-Chairs during lunch > is correct. Never mind that it was not deliberated by the plenum. > > Since the statement uses past tense it is at best misleading. > > So, for the record, I object against the statement. > > greetings, el > -- > Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s > > > On Jun 21, 2015, at 09:46, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía > <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: > >> Dear Eberhard, >> >> This was drafted before the end of our working day session, read >> out loud to attendants and circulated for feedback. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> León >> >>> El 21/06/2015, a las 9:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na >>> <mailto:el@lisse.na>> escribió: >>> >>> Dear Co-Chairs, >>> >>> I have not received a substantive response to my request. >>> >>> My understanding is that it was drafted before the meeting was >>> finished, over lunch. >>> >>> I demand an answer. >>> >>> el >>> -- >>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini >>> >>> On Jun 19, 2015, at 23:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse >>> <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> When EXACTLY was this drafted? >>>> >>>> el >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 19, 2015, at 17:10, Jordan Carter >>>> <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all >>>>> >>>>> Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, >>>>> and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this. >>>>> >>>>> I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading. >>>>> >>>>> *Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by >>>>> midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of >>>>> sending)*. >>>>> >>>>> cheers >>>>> Jordan >>> >>> [...] >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
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
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse 4-5 St Annes Walk, Alderney <directors@omadhina.net> Guernsey, GY9 3JZ Omadhina Internet Services Ltd British Channel Islands
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co-Chairs, Your Co-Chair is being quite economical with the truth. el On 2015-06-21 17:02 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Eberhard,
Again. This is a blunt misrepresentation of facts and manipulation of what I said.
I did approach you to say hi as a common courtesy to anyone I meet and I reiterated to you that the statement was drafted, openly read out loud, circulated for feedback and then published. To that you replied, “Then I am right, that is not a deliberation and since you don’t give a shit about process, I have objected to it on the list”.
Those are the facts.
Best regards,
León
El 21/06/2015, a las 15:42, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Please note that your Co-Chair approached me in the lobby and stated: "You were right about the statement, it was not deliberated".
Hence, I am most certainly not the one misrepresenting anything.
Please inform our colleague that he may seek whatever he wants, which he does all the time anyway, but fortunately there have been witnesses, of which he was not one.
Please also inform your Co-Chair that I have not singled his last reply out, and that since CCWG Accountability has been included in all correspondence in this regards and since I will ensure that all his future responses hereto will be forwarded to the mailing lists there is no substance to his comments.
As usual.
greetings, el
On 2015-06-21 13:37 , Drazek, Keith wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I request you seek a retraction and formal apology from our colleague for this very unfortunate, but perhaps not surprising, turn of events.
Thanks and regards, Keith
On Jun 21, 2015, at 1:27 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Eberhard,
This is a blunt misrepresentation and manipulation of my reply. Not to mention that you have copied lists to which I am not entitled to post to my detriment.
Saludos,
León
Enviado desde el móvil. Disculpa brevedad y errores tipográficos.
El jun 21, 2015, a las 12:26 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs
I wish to thank your collleague Leon very much for admitting in person that it was not deliberated.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 21, 2015, at 12:06, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> wrote:
Reading out loud is not deliberating.
So It is correct.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 21, 2015, at 12:01, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
> That is not correct. It was read out loud, circulated for feedback > and then published. > > Objection noted. > > > Best regards, > > > León > >> El 21/06/2015, a las 11:57, Dr Eberhard W Lisse >> <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> escribió: >> >> So what I hear that it was drafted by the Co-Chairs during lunch >> is correct. Never mind that it was not deliberated by the plenum. >> >> Since the statement uses past tense it is at best misleading. >> >> So, for the record, I object against the statement. >> >> greetings, el >> -- >> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s >> >> >> On Jun 21, 2015, at 09:46, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía >> <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: >> >>> Dear Eberhard, >>> >>> This was drafted before the end of our working day session, read >>> out loud to attendants and circulated for feedback. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> León >>> >>>> El 21/06/2015, a las 9:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na >>>> <mailto:el@lisse.na>> escribió: >>>> >>>> Dear Co-Chairs, >>>> >>>> I have not received a substantive response to my request. >>>> >>>> My understanding is that it was drafted before the meeting was >>>> finished, over lunch. >>>> >>>> I demand an answer. >>>> >>>> el >>>> -- >>>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini >>>> >>>> On Jun 19, 2015, at 23:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse >>>> <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> When EXACTLY was this drafted? >>>>> >>>>> el >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 19, 2015, at 17:10, Jordan Carter >>>>> <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all >>>>>> >>>>>> Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, >>>>>> and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by >>>>>> midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of >>>>>> sending)*. >>>>>> >>>>>> cheers >>>>>> Jordan >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >
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
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse 4-5 St Annes Walk, Alderney <directors@omadhina.net> Guernsey, GY9 3JZ Omadhina Internet Services Ltd British Channel Islands
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 21/06/2015 21:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Your Co-Chair is being quite economical with the truth.
Dear Dr Lisse, I am getting quite tired of the repeated disrespect you are showing to our colleagues, and your unfair attempts to impugne their integrity. The communique was proposed to the meeting and read out. Participants were invited to comment; there being no substantive comments, the communique was accepted. I don't know what more deliberation you could want. The handling was entirely proper and normal. Your attacks on León are without a shred of justification, as were your previous attacks on our co-chairs. He deserves your apology, as do they; if you choose to withhold it, that reflects upon you, not on them. Perhaps you might wish to reflect on how counter-productive your approach is to any effort to persuade colleagues to give their attention to your interventions, and the disservice you are doing your own cause thereby. I am a proud proponent of the multistakeholder model. Many on this list are new to this model, and unused to the opportunity openness to all does give to those who wish to be rude and disruptive. I am embarrassed to think how they must feel when they see this spat, and the other occasions you have mistreated colleagues here. I can only hope that our new colleagues can look past the behaviour of one individual and recognise the deep well of cooperation and goodwill that characterises the rest of our work. I hope they can still find it in themselves to agree with me that the great achievement of building a broad base of consensus in such a challenging area is worth even the inconvenience of suffering such rudeness. I am sorry I have had to be so blunt, but remaining silent felt too much like complicity in an injustice. Sincerely, Malcolm Hutty. -- 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 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
+100 Malcom. -james On 21/06/2015 17:59, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Malcolm Hutty" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 21/06/2015 21:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Your Co-Chair is being quite economical with the truth.
Dear Dr Lisse,
I am getting quite tired of the repeated disrespect you are showing to our colleagues, and your unfair attempts to impugne their integrity.
The communique was proposed to the meeting and read out. Participants were invited to comment; there being no substantive comments, the communique was accepted. I don't know what more deliberation you could want. The handling was entirely proper and normal.
Your attacks on León are without a shred of justification, as were your previous attacks on our co-chairs. He deserves your apology, as do they; if you choose to withhold it, that reflects upon you, not on them.
Perhaps you might wish to reflect on how counter-productive your approach is to any effort to persuade colleagues to give their attention to your interventions, and the disservice you are doing your own cause thereby.
I am a proud proponent of the multistakeholder model. Many on this list are new to this model, and unused to the opportunity openness to all does give to those who wish to be rude and disruptive. I am embarrassed to think how they must feel when they see this spat, and the other occasions you have mistreated colleagues here.
I can only hope that our new colleagues can look past the behaviour of one individual and recognise the deep well of cooperation and goodwill that characterises the rest of our work. I hope they can still find it in themselves to agree with me that the great achievement of building a broad base of consensus in such a challenging area is worth even the inconvenience of suffering such rudeness.
I am sorry I have had to be so blunt, but remaining silent felt too much like complicity in an injustice.
Sincerely,
Malcolm Hutty.
-- 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 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
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
Leon and Malcolm have well and correctly stated that deliberation took place. In my opinion, periodic but regular rudeness to those involved in this process is senseless. Especially as to our chairs and rapporteurs - who have been exemplary leaders. David McAuley -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 4:59 PM To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Cc: List ccTLD Community; CCWG Accountability; Lisse Eberhard; <ccnso-members@icann.org>; cctldworld@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communique - revised - any feedback by midnight Argentina time On 21/06/2015 21:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Your Co-Chair is being quite economical with the truth.
Dear Dr Lisse, I am getting quite tired of the repeated disrespect you are showing to our colleagues, and your unfair attempts to impugne their integrity. The communique was proposed to the meeting and read out. Participants were invited to comment; there being no substantive comments, the communique was accepted. I don't know what more deliberation you could want. The handling was entirely proper and normal. Your attacks on León are without a shred of justification, as were your previous attacks on our co-chairs. He deserves your apology, as do they; if you choose to withhold it, that reflects upon you, not on them. Perhaps you might wish to reflect on how counter-productive your approach is to any effort to persuade colleagues to give their attention to your interventions, and the disservice you are doing your own cause thereby. I am a proud proponent of the multistakeholder model. Many on this list are new to this model, and unused to the opportunity openness to all does give to those who wish to be rude and disruptive. I am embarrassed to think how they must feel when they see this spat, and the other occasions you have mistreated colleagues here. I can only hope that our new colleagues can look past the behaviour of one individual and recognise the deep well of cooperation and goodwill that characterises the rest of our work. I hope they can still find it in themselves to agree with me that the great achievement of building a broad base of consensus in such a challenging area is worth even the inconvenience of suffering such rudeness. I am sorry I have had to be so blunt, but remaining silent felt too much like complicity in an injustice. Sincerely, Malcolm Hutty. -- 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 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY 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
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 21 Jun 2015 18:21, "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
Leon and Malcolm have well and correctly stated that deliberation took
place.
In my opinion, periodic but regular rudeness to those involved in this
process is senseless. Especially as to our chairs and rapporteurs - who have been exemplary leaders.
+1 but it's good to note that this started a long time ago(at participants level) and we watched it grow wings until it got to the Co-Chairs. Hopefully there will be improvement going forward. Regards
David McAuley
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 4:59 PM To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Cc: List ccTLD Community; CCWG Accountability; Lisse Eberhard; < ccnso-members@icann.org>; cctldworld@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communique - revised - any feedback by midnight Argentina time
On 21/06/2015 21:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Your Co-Chair is being quite economical with the truth.
Dear Dr Lisse,
I am getting quite tired of the repeated disrespect you are showing to our colleagues, and your unfair attempts to impugne their integrity.
The communique was proposed to the meeting and read out. Participants were invited to comment; there being no substantive comments, the communique was accepted. I don't know what more deliberation you could want. The handling was entirely proper and normal.
Your attacks on León are without a shred of justification, as were your previous attacks on our co-chairs. He deserves your apology, as do they; if you choose to withhold it, that reflects upon you, not on them.
Perhaps you might wish to reflect on how counter-productive your approach is to any effort to persuade colleagues to give their attention to your interventions, and the disservice you are doing your own cause thereby.
I am a proud proponent of the multistakeholder model. Many on this list are new to this model, and unused to the opportunity openness to all does give to those who wish to be rude and disruptive. I am embarrassed to think how they must feel when they see this spat, and the other occasions you have mistreated colleagues here.
I can only hope that our new colleagues can look past the behaviour of one individual and recognise the deep well of cooperation and goodwill that characterises the rest of our work. I hope they can still find it in themselves to agree with me that the great achievement of building a broad base of consensus in such a challenging area is worth even the inconvenience of suffering such rudeness.
I am sorry I have had to be so blunt, but remaining silent felt too much like complicity in an injustice.
Sincerely,
Malcolm Hutty.
-- 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 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co-Chairs, please advise the participant, who was not present at the exchange, that if he is tired he can go to sleep for all I care. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jun 21, 2015, at 17:59, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 21/06/2015 21:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Dear Co-Chairs,
Your Co-Chair is being quite economical with the truth.
Dear Dr Lisse,
I am getting quite tired of the repeated disrespect you are showing to our colleagues, and your unfair attempts to impugne their integrity.
The communique was proposed to the meeting and read out. Participants were invited to comment; there being no substantive comments, the communique was accepted. I don't know what more deliberation you could want. The handling was entirely proper and normal.
Your attacks on León are without a shred of justification, as were your previous attacks on our co-chairs. He deserves your apology, as do they; if you choose to withhold it, that reflects upon you, not on them.
Perhaps you might wish to reflect on how counter-productive your approach is to any effort to persuade colleagues to give their attention to your interventions, and the disservice you are doing your own cause thereby.
I am a proud proponent of the multistakeholder model. Many on this list are new to this model, and unused to the opportunity openness to all does give to those who wish to be rude and disruptive. I am embarrassed to think how they must feel when they see this spat, and the other occasions you have mistreated colleagues here.
I can only hope that our new colleagues can look past the behaviour of one individual and recognise the deep well of cooperation and goodwill that characterises the rest of our work. I hope they can still find it in themselves to agree with me that the great achievement of building a broad base of consensus in such a challenging area is worth even the inconvenience of suffering such rudeness.
I am sorry I have had to be so blunt, but remaining silent felt too much like complicity in an injustice.
Sincerely,
Malcolm Hutty.
-- 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 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
Colleagues It seems to me worth recording, for "the record" that our colleague so frequently alludes to, some thoughts about the leadership of our group. Given the frequency and vituperative nature of the criticism emanating from one corner, I would not want silence in our discussions to in any way betoken agreement or assent. When some future historian looks back on these proceedings they might mistake volume for accuracy and lack of contradiction for agreement. That is most certainly not the case (at least not for me, and I suspect for many others). I, for one, began this process with a modest amount of optimism that it could prove productive and a healthy dollop of skepticism that so unwieldy a process could be effectively managed. In 35 years in government and the private sector I have seen any number of committees with a much narrower mandate and a much smaller membership flounder and fail. We should all, therefore, reflect that our co-Chairs and rapporteurs have, through their efforts, managed to push us along this far and this effectively. They have run an open and transparent process. They have been inclusive. They have moved the discussion along (perhaps too fast for some, but well within the bounds of reasonableness). They have exhibited patience beyond measure (I, personally, would long ago have asked the chartering organization to recall its member). And, to their very great credit, they have allowed the process to run without imposing their own views -- indeed, I would be hard pressed to state exactly what they might be -- an exercise in restraint that deserves praise. In short, by any objective measure our co-Chairs have done a fine job. It has not been perfect, to be sure, but it has met every objective test of reasonableness that one can devise. I reject utterly any suggestion of bias, animus, or dishonesty. Those are baseless puerile allegations that reflect more on the nature of the accuser, whose views will, I am sure, be seen in retrospect as baseless. Regards 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 -----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm@linx.net] Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 4:59 PM To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Cc: List ccTLD Community; CCWG Accountability; Lisse Eberhard; <ccnso-members@icann.org>; cctldworld@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communique - revised - any feedback by midnight Argentina time On 21/06/2015 21:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Your Co-Chair is being quite economical with the truth.
Dear Dr Lisse, I am getting quite tired of the repeated disrespect you are showing to our colleagues, and your unfair attempts to impugne their integrity. The communique was proposed to the meeting and read out. Participants were invited to comment; there being no substantive comments, the communique was accepted. I don't know what more deliberation you could want. The handling was entirely proper and normal. Your attacks on León are without a shred of justification, as were your previous attacks on our co-chairs. He deserves your apology, as do they; if you choose to withhold it, that reflects upon you, not on them. Perhaps you might wish to reflect on how counter-productive your approach is to any effort to persuade colleagues to give their attention to your interventions, and the disservice you are doing your own cause thereby. I am a proud proponent of the multistakeholder model. Many on this list are new to this model, and unused to the opportunity openness to all does give to those who wish to be rude and disruptive. I am embarrassed to think how they must feel when they see this spat, and the other occasions you have mistreated colleagues here. I can only hope that our new colleagues can look past the behaviour of one individual and recognise the deep well of cooperation and goodwill that characterises the rest of our work. I hope they can still find it in themselves to agree with me that the great achievement of building a broad base of consensus in such a challenging area is worth even the inconvenience of suffering such rudeness. I am sorry I have had to be so blunt, but remaining silent felt too much like complicity in an injustice. Sincerely, Malcolm Hutty. -- 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 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY 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
May I implore participants to continue to note the ICANN policy on polite discourse. It is important to have a strong and vigorous debate but we don't need to make personal attacks on each other. A polite note of disagreement should be sufficient, and has been frequently used. But if we start to attack individuals on list, this will distract us from the real tasks Regards Sent from my iPhone
On 22/06/2015, at 8:53 am, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Colleagues
It seems to me worth recording, for "the record" that our colleague so frequently alludes to, some thoughts about the leadership of our group. Given the frequency and vituperative nature of the criticism emanating from one corner, I would not want silence in our discussions to in any way betoken agreement or assent. When some future historian looks back on these proceedings they might mistake volume for accuracy and lack of contradiction for agreement. That is most certainly not the case (at least not for me, and I suspect for many others).
I, for one, began this process with a modest amount of optimism that it could prove productive and a healthy dollop of skepticism that so unwieldy a process could be effectively managed. In 35 years in government and the private sector I have seen any number of committees with a much narrower mandate and a much smaller membership flounder and fail.
We should all, therefore, reflect that our co-Chairs and rapporteurs have, through their efforts, managed to push us along this far and this effectively. They have run an open and transparent process. They have been inclusive. They have moved the discussion along (perhaps too fast for some, but well within the bounds of reasonableness). They have exhibited patience beyond measure (I, personally, would long ago have asked the chartering organization to recall its member). And, to their very great credit, they have allowed the process to run without imposing their own views -- indeed, I would be hard pressed to state exactly what they might be -- an exercise in restraint that deserves praise.
In short, by any objective measure our co-Chairs have done a fine job. It has not been perfect, to be sure, but it has met every objective test of reasonableness that one can devise. I reject utterly any suggestion of bias, animus, or dishonesty. Those are baseless puerile allegations that reflect more on the nature of the accuser, whose views will, I am sure, be seen in retrospect as baseless.
Regards 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
-----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm@linx.net] Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 4:59 PM To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Cc: List ccTLD Community; CCWG Accountability; Lisse Eberhard; <ccnso-members@icann.org>; cctldworld@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communique - revised - any feedback by midnight Argentina time
On 21/06/2015 21:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Dear Co-Chairs,
Your Co-Chair is being quite economical with the truth.
Dear Dr Lisse,
I am getting quite tired of the repeated disrespect you are showing to our colleagues, and your unfair attempts to impugne their integrity.
The communique was proposed to the meeting and read out. Participants were invited to comment; there being no substantive comments, the communique was accepted. I don't know what more deliberation you could want. The handling was entirely proper and normal.
Your attacks on León are without a shred of justification, as were your previous attacks on our co-chairs. He deserves your apology, as do they; if you choose to withhold it, that reflects upon you, not on them.
Perhaps you might wish to reflect on how counter-productive your approach is to any effort to persuade colleagues to give their attention to your interventions, and the disservice you are doing your own cause thereby.
I am a proud proponent of the multistakeholder model. Many on this list are new to this model, and unused to the opportunity openness to all does give to those who wish to be rude and disruptive. I am embarrassed to think how they must feel when they see this spat, and the other occasions you have mistreated colleagues here.
I can only hope that our new colleagues can look past the behaviour of one individual and recognise the deep well of cooperation and goodwill that characterises the rest of our work. I hope they can still find it in themselves to agree with me that the great achievement of building a broad base of consensus in such a challenging area is worth even the inconvenience of suffering such rudeness.
I am sorry I have had to be so blunt, but remaining silent felt too much like complicity in an injustice.
Sincerely,
Malcolm Hutty.
-- 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 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 to Paul and to our esteemed Ombudsman. Greg Shatan On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Chris LaHatte <chris.lahatte@icann.org> wrote:
May I implore participants to continue to note the ICANN policy on polite discourse. It is important to have a strong and vigorous debate but we don't need to make personal attacks on each other. A polite note of disagreement should be sufficient, and has been frequently used. But if we start to attack individuals on list, this will distract us from the real tasks Regards
Sent from my iPhone
On 22/06/2015, at 8:53 am, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Colleagues
It seems to me worth recording, for "the record" that our colleague so frequently alludes to, some thoughts about the leadership of our group. Given the frequency and vituperative nature of the criticism emanating from one corner, I would not want silence in our discussions to in any way betoken agreement or assent. When some future historian looks back on these proceedings they might mistake volume for accuracy and lack of contradiction for agreement. That is most certainly not the case (at least not for me, and I suspect for many others).
I, for one, began this process with a modest amount of optimism that it could prove productive and a healthy dollop of skepticism that so unwieldy a process could be effectively managed. In 35 years in government and the private sector I have seen any number of committees with a much narrower mandate and a much smaller membership flounder and fail.
We should all, therefore, reflect that our co-Chairs and rapporteurs have, through their efforts, managed to push us along this far and this effectively. They have run an open and transparent process. They have been inclusive. They have moved the discussion along (perhaps too fast for some, but well within the bounds of reasonableness). They have exhibited patience beyond measure (I, personally, would long ago have asked the chartering organization to recall its member). And, to their very great credit, they have allowed the process to run without imposing their own views -- indeed, I would be hard pressed to state exactly what they might be -- an exercise in restraint that deserves praise.
In short, by any objective measure our co-Chairs have done a fine job. It has not been perfect, to be sure, but it has met every objective test of reasonableness that one can devise. I reject utterly any suggestion of bias, animus, or dishonesty. Those are baseless puerile allegations that reflect more on the nature of the accuser, whose views will, I am sure, be seen in retrospect as baseless.
Regards 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
-----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm@linx.net] Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 4:59 PM To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Cc: List ccTLD Community; CCWG Accountability; Lisse Eberhard; <ccnso-members@icann.org>; cctldworld@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communique - revised - any feedback by midnight Argentina time
On 21/06/2015 21:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Dear Co-Chairs,
Your Co-Chair is being quite economical with the truth.
Dear Dr Lisse,
I am getting quite tired of the repeated disrespect you are showing to our colleagues, and your unfair attempts to impugne their integrity.
The communique was proposed to the meeting and read out. Participants were invited to comment; there being no substantive comments, the communique was accepted. I don't know what more deliberation you could want. The handling was entirely proper and normal.
Your attacks on León are without a shred of justification, as were your previous attacks on our co-chairs. He deserves your apology, as do they; if you choose to withhold it, that reflects upon you, not on them.
Perhaps you might wish to reflect on how counter-productive your approach is to any effort to persuade colleagues to give their attention to your interventions, and the disservice you are doing your own cause thereby.
I am a proud proponent of the multistakeholder model. Many on this list are new to this model, and unused to the opportunity openness to all does give to those who wish to be rude and disruptive. I am embarrassed to think how they must feel when they see this spat, and the other occasions you have mistreated colleagues here.
I can only hope that our new colleagues can look past the behaviour of one individual and recognise the deep well of cooperation and goodwill that characterises the rest of our work. I hope they can still find it in themselves to agree with me that the great achievement of building a broad base of consensus in such a challenging area is worth even the inconvenience of suffering such rudeness.
I am sorry I have had to be so blunt, but remaining silent felt too much like complicity in an injustice.
Sincerely,
Malcolm Hutty.
-- 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 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
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
_______________________________________________ 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 second Greg's motion!!!!! Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone
El jun 22, 2015, a las 9:47, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> escribió:
+1 to Paul and to our esteemed Ombudsman.
Greg Shatan
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Chris LaHatte <chris.lahatte@icann.org> wrote: May I implore participants to continue to note the ICANN policy on polite discourse. It is important to have a strong and vigorous debate but we don't need to make personal attacks on each other. A polite note of disagreement should be sufficient, and has been frequently used. But if we start to attack individuals on list, this will distract us from the real tasks Regards
Sent from my iPhone
On 22/06/2015, at 8:53 am, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Colleagues
It seems to me worth recording, for "the record" that our colleague so frequently alludes to, some thoughts about the leadership of our group. Given the frequency and vituperative nature of the criticism emanating from one corner, I would not want silence in our discussions to in any way betoken agreement or assent. When some future historian looks back on these proceedings they might mistake volume for accuracy and lack of contradiction for agreement. That is most certainly not the case (at least not for me, and I suspect for many others).
I, for one, began this process with a modest amount of optimism that it could prove productive and a healthy dollop of skepticism that so unwieldy a process could be effectively managed. In 35 years in government and the private sector I have seen any number of committees with a much narrower mandate and a much smaller membership flounder and fail.
We should all, therefore, reflect that our co-Chairs and rapporteurs have, through their efforts, managed to push us along this far and this effectively. They have run an open and transparent process. They have been inclusive. They have moved the discussion along (perhaps too fast for some, but well within the bounds of reasonableness). They have exhibited patience beyond measure (I, personally, would long ago have asked the chartering organization to recall its member). And, to their very great credit, they have allowed the process to run without imposing their own views -- indeed, I would be hard pressed to state exactly what they might be -- an exercise in restraint that deserves praise.
In short, by any objective measure our co-Chairs have done a fine job. It has not been perfect, to be sure, but it has met every objective test of reasonableness that one can devise. I reject utterly any suggestion of bias, animus, or dishonesty. Those are baseless puerile allegations that reflect more on the nature of the accuser, whose views will, I am sure, be seen in retrospect as baseless.
Regards 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
-----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm@linx.net] Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 4:59 PM To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Cc: List ccTLD Community; CCWG Accountability; Lisse Eberhard; <ccnso-members@icann.org>; cctldworld@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communique - revised - any feedback by midnight Argentina time
On 21/06/2015 21:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Dear Co-Chairs,
Your Co-Chair is being quite economical with the truth.
Dear Dr Lisse,
I am getting quite tired of the repeated disrespect you are showing to our colleagues, and your unfair attempts to impugne their integrity.
The communique was proposed to the meeting and read out. Participants were invited to comment; there being no substantive comments, the communique was accepted. I don't know what more deliberation you could want. The handling was entirely proper and normal.
Your attacks on León are without a shred of justification, as were your previous attacks on our co-chairs. He deserves your apology, as do they; if you choose to withhold it, that reflects upon you, not on them.
Perhaps you might wish to reflect on how counter-productive your approach is to any effort to persuade colleagues to give their attention to your interventions, and the disservice you are doing your own cause thereby.
I am a proud proponent of the multistakeholder model. Many on this list are new to this model, and unused to the opportunity openness to all does give to those who wish to be rude and disruptive. I am embarrassed to think how they must feel when they see this spat, and the other occasions you have mistreated colleagues here.
I can only hope that our new colleagues can look past the behaviour of one individual and recognise the deep well of cooperation and goodwill that characterises the rest of our work. I hope they can still find it in themselves to agree with me that the great achievement of building a broad base of consensus in such a challenging area is worth even the inconvenience of suffering such rudeness.
I am sorry I have had to be so blunt, but remaining silent felt too much like complicity in an injustice.
Sincerely,
Malcolm Hutty.
-- 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 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
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
_______________________________________________ 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
What motion? That wasn't even a notion. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 22, 2015, at 09:52, Carlos Raúl G. <carlosraulg@gmail.com> wrote:
I second Greg's motion!!!!!
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone
El jun 22, 2015, a las 9:47, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> escribió:
+1 to Paul and to our esteemed Ombudsman.
Greg Shatan [...]
Chris, Although I am sure this was sent with the best intention, it does not help at all. At least, not me. It is a common phenomenon, but I get very annoyed when, with the purpose of sending a singular particular person a corrective message, a whole group is addressed. And that is for three reasons: 1) when you write ³participants², ³we² and ³us², your message seems to address me too. However, I have no recollection of making personal attacks on anybody. I feel accused of something I did not do. 2) it is inefficient and ineffective. You¹re addressing a whole lot of people who are behaving correctly. Your message is useless to them. The person you intend to address can always fool himself (and possibly others) that the message was not directed at him. And continue his behavior. 3) Although I understand that you don¹t want to personally attack someone, your generic message makes a weak point and at least gives me the impression that you¹re reluctant to speak out clearly and rightfully. Best, Roelof Meijer On 22-06-15 09:27, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Chris LaHatte" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of chris.lahatte@icann.org> wrote:
May I implore participants to continue to note the ICANN policy on polite discourse. It is important to have a strong and vigorous debate but we don't need to make personal attacks on each other. A polite note of disagreement should be sufficient, and has been frequently used. But if we start to attack individuals on list, this will distract us from the real tasks Regards
Sent from my iPhone
On 22/06/2015, at 8:53 am, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Colleagues
It seems to me worth recording, for "the record" that our colleague so frequently alludes to, some thoughts about the leadership of our group. Given the frequency and vituperative nature of the criticism emanating from one corner, I would not want silence in our discussions to in any way betoken agreement or assent. When some future historian looks back on these proceedings they might mistake volume for accuracy and lack of contradiction for agreement. That is most certainly not the case (at least not for me, and I suspect for many others).
I, for one, began this process with a modest amount of optimism that it could prove productive and a healthy dollop of skepticism that so unwieldy a process could be effectively managed. In 35 years in government and the private sector I have seen any number of committees with a much narrower mandate and a much smaller membership flounder and fail.
We should all, therefore, reflect that our co-Chairs and rapporteurs have, through their efforts, managed to push us along this far and this effectively. They have run an open and transparent process. They have been inclusive. They have moved the discussion along (perhaps too fast for some, but well within the bounds of reasonableness). They have exhibited patience beyond measure (I, personally, would long ago have asked the chartering organization to recall its member). And, to their very great credit, they have allowed the process to run without imposing their own views -- indeed, I would be hard pressed to state exactly what they might be -- an exercise in restraint that deserves praise.
In short, by any objective measure our co-Chairs have done a fine job. It has not been perfect, to be sure, but it has met every objective test of reasonableness that one can devise. I reject utterly any suggestion of bias, animus, or dishonesty. Those are baseless puerile allegations that reflect more on the nature of the accuser, whose views will, I am sure, be seen in retrospect as baseless.
Regards 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
-----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm@linx.net] Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 4:59 PM To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Cc: List ccTLD Community; CCWG Accountability; Lisse Eberhard; <ccnso-members@icann.org>; cctldworld@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communique - revised - any feedback by midnight Argentina time
On 21/06/2015 21:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Dear Co-Chairs,
Your Co-Chair is being quite economical with the truth.
Dear Dr Lisse,
I am getting quite tired of the repeated disrespect you are showing to our colleagues, and your unfair attempts to impugne their integrity.
The communique was proposed to the meeting and read out. Participants were invited to comment; there being no substantive comments, the communique was accepted. I don't know what more deliberation you could want. The handling was entirely proper and normal.
Your attacks on León are without a shred of justification, as were your previous attacks on our co-chairs. He deserves your apology, as do they; if you choose to withhold it, that reflects upon you, not on them.
Perhaps you might wish to reflect on how counter-productive your approach is to any effort to persuade colleagues to give their attention to your interventions, and the disservice you are doing your own cause thereby.
I am a proud proponent of the multistakeholder model. Many on this list are new to this model, and unused to the opportunity openness to all does give to those who wish to be rude and disruptive. I am embarrassed to think how they must feel when they see this spat, and the other occasions you have mistreated colleagues here.
I can only hope that our new colleagues can look past the behaviour of one individual and recognise the deep well of cooperation and goodwill that characterises the rest of our work. I hope they can still find it in themselves to agree with me that the great achievement of building a broad base of consensus in such a challenging area is worth even the inconvenience of suffering such rudeness.
I am sorry I have had to be so blunt, but remaining silent felt too much like complicity in an injustice.
Sincerely,
Malcolm Hutty.
-- 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 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
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
_______________________________________________ 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
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/18/us_government_stages_another_iana_in... el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 22, 2015, at 08:16, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Colleagues
It seems to me worth recording, for "the record" that our colleague so frequently alludes to, some thoughts about the leadership of our group. Given the frequency and vituperative nature of the criticism emanating from one corner, I would not want silence in our discussions to in any way betoken agreement or assent. When some future historian looks back on these proceedings they might mistake volume for accuracy and lack of contradiction for agreement. That is most certainly not the case (at least not for me, and I suspect for many others).
I, for one, began this process with a modest amount of optimism that it could prove productive and a healthy dollop of skepticism that so unwieldy a process could be effectively managed. In 35 years in government and the private sector I have seen any number of committees with a much narrower mandate and a much smaller membership flounder and fail.
We should all, therefore, reflect that our co-Chairs and rapporteurs have, through their efforts, managed to push us along this far and this effectively. They have run an open and transparent process. They have been inclusive. They have moved the discussion along (perhaps too fast for some, but well within the bounds of reasonableness). They have exhibited patience beyond measure (I, personally, would long ago have asked the chartering organization to recall its member). And, to their very great credit, they have allowed the process to run without imposing their own views -- indeed, I would be hard pressed to state exactly what they might be -- an exercise in restraint that deserves praise.
In short, by any objective measure our co-Chairs have done a fine job. It has not been perfect, to be sure, but it has met every objective test of reasonableness that one can devise. I reject utterly any suggestion of bias, animus, or dishonesty. Those are baseless puerile allegations that reflect more on the nature of the accuser, whose views will, I am sure, be seen in retrospect as baseless.
Regards 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
-----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm@linx.net] Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 4:59 PM To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Cc: List ccTLD Community; CCWG Accountability; Lisse Eberhard; <ccnso-members@icann.org>; cctldworld@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communique - revised - any feedback by midnight Argentina time
On 21/06/2015 21:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Dear Co-Chairs,
Your Co-Chair is being quite economical with the truth.
Dear Dr Lisse,
I am getting quite tired of the repeated disrespect you are showing to our colleagues, and your unfair attempts to impugne their integrity.
The communique was proposed to the meeting and read out. Participants were invited to comment; there being no substantive comments, the communique was accepted. I don't know what more deliberation you could want. The handling was entirely proper and normal.
Your attacks on León are without a shred of justification, as were your previous attacks on our co-chairs. He deserves your apology, as do they; if you choose to withhold it, that reflects upon you, not on them.
Perhaps you might wish to reflect on how counter-productive your approach is to any effort to persuade colleagues to give their attention to your interventions, and the disservice you are doing your own cause thereby.
I am a proud proponent of the multistakeholder model. Many on this list are new to this model, and unused to the opportunity openness to all does give to those who wish to be rude and disruptive. I am embarrassed to think how they must feel when they see this spat, and the other occasions you have mistreated colleagues here.
I can only hope that our new colleagues can look past the behaviour of one individual and recognise the deep well of cooperation and goodwill that characterises the rest of our work. I hope they can still find it in themselves to agree with me that the great achievement of building a broad base of consensus in such a challenging area is worth even the inconvenience of suffering such rudeness.
I am sorry I have had to be so blunt, but remaining silent felt too much like complicity in an injustice.
Sincerely,
Malcolm Hutty.
-- 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 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Paul, all, To make sure that the record, and any future historian, gets this right: I completely agree with Paul¹s assessment of the performance and conduct of our co-chairs and rapporteurs. Additionally, als to make sure that both the record and future historians get this right, let¹s all agree that volume is not equal to accuracy and lack of contradiction does not at all means agreement. I am of the opinion that the best way to deal with Eberhard Lisse¹s completely unfounded, aggressive criticism often aimed at CCWG colleagues who, in sharp contrast, contribute enormously to our goal, can best be ignored. As we witness now again, every reaction to him, provokes another reaction, frustrating us all, distracting us from our work and not getting us any further. It¹s just a game to him, let¹s refuse to play. If we really want this to stop, we should deal with it in a structural way, not by agreeing publicly that we all disagree. Best, Roelof Meijer On 22-06-15 08:16, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Colleagues
It seems to me worth recording, for "the record" that our colleague so frequently alludes to, some thoughts about the leadership of our group. Given the frequency and vituperative nature of the criticism emanating from one corner, I would not want silence in our discussions to in any way betoken agreement or assent. When some future historian looks back on these proceedings they might mistake volume for accuracy and lack of contradiction for agreement. That is most certainly not the case (at least not for me, and I suspect for many others).
I, for one, began this process with a modest amount of optimism that it could prove productive and a healthy dollop of skepticism that so unwieldy a process could be effectively managed. In 35 years in government and the private sector I have seen any number of committees with a much narrower mandate and a much smaller membership flounder and fail.
We should all, therefore, reflect that our co-Chairs and rapporteurs have, through their efforts, managed to push us along this far and this effectively. They have run an open and transparent process. They have been inclusive. They have moved the discussion along (perhaps too fast for some, but well within the bounds of reasonableness). They have exhibited patience beyond measure (I, personally, would long ago have asked the chartering organization to recall its member). And, to their very great credit, they have allowed the process to run without imposing their own views -- indeed, I would be hard pressed to state exactly what they might be -- an exercise in restraint that deserves praise.
In short, by any objective measure our co-Chairs have done a fine job. It has not been perfect, to be sure, but it has met every objective test of reasonableness that one can devise. I reject utterly any suggestion of bias, animus, or dishonesty. Those are baseless puerile allegations that reflect more on the nature of the accuser, whose views will, I am sure, be seen in retrospect as baseless.
Regards 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
-----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm@linx.net] Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 4:59 PM To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Cc: List ccTLD Community; CCWG Accountability; Lisse Eberhard; <ccnso-members@icann.org>; cctldworld@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communique - revised - any feedback by midnight Argentina time
On 21/06/2015 21:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Your Co-Chair is being quite economical with the truth.
Dear Dr Lisse,
I am getting quite tired of the repeated disrespect you are showing to our colleagues, and your unfair attempts to impugne their integrity.
The communique was proposed to the meeting and read out. Participants were invited to comment; there being no substantive comments, the communique was accepted. I don't know what more deliberation you could want. The handling was entirely proper and normal.
Your attacks on León are without a shred of justification, as were your previous attacks on our co-chairs. He deserves your apology, as do they; if you choose to withhold it, that reflects upon you, not on them.
Perhaps you might wish to reflect on how counter-productive your approach is to any effort to persuade colleagues to give their attention to your interventions, and the disservice you are doing your own cause thereby.
I am a proud proponent of the multistakeholder model. Many on this list are new to this model, and unused to the opportunity openness to all does give to those who wish to be rude and disruptive. I am embarrassed to think how they must feel when they see this spat, and the other occasions you have mistreated colleagues here.
I can only hope that our new colleagues can look past the behaviour of one individual and recognise the deep well of cooperation and goodwill that characterises the rest of our work. I hope they can still find it in themselves to agree with me that the great achievement of building a broad base of consensus in such a challenging area is worth even the inconvenience of suffering such rudeness.
I am sorry I have had to be so blunt, but remaining silent felt too much like complicity in an injustice.
Sincerely,
Malcolm Hutty.
-- 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 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
It's most certainly not a game to me. el On 2015-06-22 11:15 , Roelof Meijer wrote:
Dear Paul, all,
To make sure that the record, and any future historian, gets this right: I completely agree with Paul¹s assessment of the performance and conduct of our co-chairs and rapporteurs.
Additionally, als to make sure that both the record and future historians get this right, let¹s all agree that volume is not equal to accuracy and lack of contradiction does not at all means agreement.
I am of the opinion that the best way to deal with Eberhard Lisse¹s completely unfounded, aggressive criticism often aimed at CCWG colleagues who, in sharp contrast, contribute enormously to our goal, can best be ignored. As we witness now again, every reaction to him, provokes another reaction, frustrating us all, distracting us from our work and not getting us any further.
It¹s just a game to him, let¹s refuse to play.
If we really want this to stop, we should deal with it in a structural way, not by agreeing publicly that we all disagree.
Best,
Roelof Meijer
On 22-06-15 08:16, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Colleagues
It seems to me worth recording, for "the record" that our colleague so frequently alludes to, some thoughts about the leadership of our group. Given the frequency and vituperative nature of the criticism emanating from one corner, I would not want silence in our discussions to in any way betoken agreement or assent. When some future historian looks back on these proceedings they might mistake volume for accuracy and lack of contradiction for agreement. That is most certainly not the case (at least not for me, and I suspect for many others).
I, for one, began this process with a modest amount of optimism that it could prove productive and a healthy dollop of skepticism that so unwieldy a process could be effectively managed. In 35 years in government and the private sector I have seen any number of committees with a much narrower mandate and a much smaller membership flounder and fail.
We should all, therefore, reflect that our co-Chairs and rapporteurs have, through their efforts, managed to push us along this far and this effectively. They have run an open and transparent process. They have been inclusive. They have moved the discussion along (perhaps too fast for some, but well within the bounds of reasonableness). They have exhibited patience beyond measure (I, personally, would long ago have asked the chartering organization to recall its member). And, to their very great credit, they have allowed the process to run without imposing their own views -- indeed, I would be hard pressed to state exactly what they might be -- an exercise in restraint that deserves praise.
In short, by any objective measure our co-Chairs have done a fine job. It has not been perfect, to be sure, but it has met every objective test of reasonableness that one can devise. I reject utterly any suggestion of bias, animus, or dishonesty. Those are baseless puerile allegations that reflect more on the nature of the accuser, whose views will, I am sure, be seen in retrospect as baseless.
Regards 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
-----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm@linx.net] Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 4:59 PM To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Cc: List ccTLD Community; CCWG Accountability; Lisse Eberhard; <ccnso-members@icann.org>; cctldworld@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communique - revised - any feedback by midnight Argentina time
On 21/06/2015 21:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Your Co-Chair is being quite economical with the truth.
Dear Dr Lisse,
I am getting quite tired of the repeated disrespect you are showing to our colleagues, and your unfair attempts to impugne their integrity.
The communique was proposed to the meeting and read out. Participants were invited to comment; there being no substantive comments, the communique was accepted. I don't know what more deliberation you could want. The handling was entirely proper and normal.
Your attacks on León are without a shred of justification, as were your previous attacks on our co-chairs. He deserves your apology, as do they; if you choose to withhold it, that reflects upon you, not on them.
Perhaps you might wish to reflect on how counter-productive your approach is to any effort to persuade colleagues to give their attention to your interventions, and the disservice you are doing your own cause thereby.
I am a proud proponent of the multistakeholder model. Many on this list are new to this model, and unused to the opportunity openness to all does give to those who wish to be rude and disruptive. I am embarrassed to think how they must feel when they see this spat, and the other occasions you have mistreated colleagues here.
I can only hope that our new colleagues can look past the behaviour of one individual and recognise the deep well of cooperation and goodwill that characterises the rest of our work. I hope they can still find it in themselves to agree with me that the great achievement of building a broad base of consensus in such a challenging area is worth even the inconvenience of suffering such rudeness.
I am sorry I have had to be so blunt, but remaining silent felt too much like complicity in an injustice.
Sincerely,
Malcolm Hutty.
-- 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 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
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
_______________________________________________ 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
It¹s just a game to him, let¹s refuse to play Well said. In fact, most email clients contain features that automate this process for you. Thank you, J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy On Jun 22, 2015, at 11:15, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote: Dear Paul, all, To make sure that the record, and any future historian, gets this right: I completely agree with Paul¹s assessment of the performance and conduct of our co-chairs and rapporteurs. Additionally, als to make sure that both the record and future historians get this right, let¹s all agree that volume is not equal to accuracy and lack of contradiction does not at all means agreement. I am of the opinion that the best way to deal with Eberhard Lisse¹s completely unfounded, aggressive criticism often aimed at CCWG colleagues who, in sharp contrast, contribute enormously to our goal, can best be ignored. As we witness now again, every reaction to him, provokes another reaction, frustrating us all, distracting us from our work and not getting us any further. It¹s just a game to him, let¹s refuse to play. If we really want this to stop, we should deal with it in a structural way, not by agreeing publicly that we all disagree. Best, Roelof Meijer On 22-06-15 08:16, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Colleagues It seems to me worth recording, for "the record" that our colleague so frequently alludes to, some thoughts about the leadership of our group. Given the frequency and vituperative nature of the criticism emanating from one corner, I would not want silence in our discussions to in any way betoken agreement or assent. When some future historian looks back on these proceedings they might mistake volume for accuracy and lack of contradiction for agreement. That is most certainly not the case (at least not for me, and I suspect for many others). I, for one, began this process with a modest amount of optimism that it could prove productive and a healthy dollop of skepticism that so unwieldy a process could be effectively managed. In 35 years in government and the private sector I have seen any number of committees with a much narrower mandate and a much smaller membership flounder and fail. We should all, therefore, reflect that our co-Chairs and rapporteurs have, through their efforts, managed to push us along this far and this effectively. They have run an open and transparent process. They have been inclusive. They have moved the discussion along (perhaps too fast for some, but well within the bounds of reasonableness). They have exhibited patience beyond measure (I, personally, would long ago have asked the chartering organization to recall its member). And, to their very great credit, they have allowed the process to run without imposing their own views -- indeed, I would be hard pressed to state exactly what they might be -- an exercise in restraint that deserves praise. In short, by any objective measure our co-Chairs have done a fine job. It has not been perfect, to be sure, but it has met every objective test of reasonableness that one can devise. I reject utterly any suggestion of bias, animus, or dishonesty. Those are baseless puerile allegations that reflect more on the nature of the accuser, whose views will, I am sure, be seen in retrospect as baseless. Regards Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 -----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm@linx.net] Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 4:59 PM To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Cc: List ccTLD Community; CCWG Accountability; Lisse Eberhard; <ccnso-members@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-members@icann.org>>; cctldworld@icann.org<mailto:cctldworld@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communique - revised - any feedback by midnight Argentina time On 21/06/2015 21:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Dear Co-Chairs, Your Co-Chair is being quite economical with the truth. Dear Dr Lisse, I am getting quite tired of the repeated disrespect you are showing to our colleagues, and your unfair attempts to impugne their integrity. The communique was proposed to the meeting and read out. Participants were invited to comment; there being no substantive comments, the communique was accepted. I don't know what more deliberation you could want. The handling was entirely proper and normal. Your attacks on León are without a shred of justification, as were your previous attacks on our co-chairs. He deserves your apology, as do they; if you choose to withhold it, that reflects upon you, not on them. Perhaps you might wish to reflect on how counter-productive your approach is to any effort to persuade colleagues to give their attention to your interventions, and the disservice you are doing your own cause thereby. I am a proud proponent of the multistakeholder model. Many on this list are new to this model, and unused to the opportunity openness to all does give to those who wish to be rude and disruptive. I am embarrassed to think how they must feel when they see this spat, and the other occasions you have mistreated colleagues here. I can only hope that our new colleagues can look past the behaviour of one individual and recognise the deep well of cooperation and goodwill that characterises the rest of our work. I hope they can still find it in themselves to agree with me that the great achievement of building a broad base of consensus in such a challenging area is worth even the inconvenience of suffering such rudeness. I am sorry I have had to be so blunt, but remaining silent felt too much like complicity in an injustice. Sincerely, Malcolm Hutty. -- 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 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY 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://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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Well said. P 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: Roelof Meijer [mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 10:15 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig Cc: 'CCWG Accountability' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communique - revised - any feedback by midnight Argentina time Dear Paul, all, To make sure that the record, and any future historian, gets this right: I completely agree with Paul¹s assessment of the performance and conduct of our co-chairs and rapporteurs. Additionally, als to make sure that both the record and future historians get this right, let¹s all agree that volume is not equal to accuracy and lack of contradiction does not at all means agreement. I am of the opinion that the best way to deal with Eberhard Lisse¹s completely unfounded, aggressive criticism often aimed at CCWG colleagues who, in sharp contrast, contribute enormously to our goal, can best be ignored. As we witness now again, every reaction to him, provokes another reaction, frustrating us all, distracting us from our work and not getting us any further. It¹s just a game to him, let¹s refuse to play. If we really want this to stop, we should deal with it in a structural way, not by agreeing publicly that we all disagree. Best, Roelof Meijer On 22-06-15 08:16, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Colleagues
It seems to me worth recording, for "the record" that our colleague so frequently alludes to, some thoughts about the leadership of our group. Given the frequency and vituperative nature of the criticism emanating from one corner, I would not want silence in our discussions to in any way betoken agreement or assent. When some future historian looks back on these proceedings they might mistake volume for accuracy and lack of contradiction for agreement. That is most certainly not the case (at least not for me, and I suspect for many others).
I, for one, began this process with a modest amount of optimism that it could prove productive and a healthy dollop of skepticism that so unwieldy a process could be effectively managed. In 35 years in government and the private sector I have seen any number of committees with a much narrower mandate and a much smaller membership flounder and fail.
We should all, therefore, reflect that our co-Chairs and rapporteurs have, through their efforts, managed to push us along this far and this effectively. They have run an open and transparent process. They have been inclusive. They have moved the discussion along (perhaps too fast for some, but well within the bounds of reasonableness). They have exhibited patience beyond measure (I, personally, would long ago have asked the chartering organization to recall its member). And, to their very great credit, they have allowed the process to run without imposing their own views -- indeed, I would be hard pressed to state exactly what they might be -- an exercise in restraint that deserves praise.
In short, by any objective measure our co-Chairs have done a fine job. It has not been perfect, to be sure, but it has met every objective test of reasonableness that one can devise. I reject utterly any suggestion of bias, animus, or dishonesty. Those are baseless puerile allegations that reflect more on the nature of the accuser, whose views will, I am sure, be seen in retrospect as baseless.
Regards 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
-----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm@linx.net] Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 4:59 PM To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Cc: List ccTLD Community; CCWG Accountability; Lisse Eberhard; <ccnso-members@icann.org>; cctldworld@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communique - revised - any feedback by midnight Argentina time
On 21/06/2015 21:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Your Co-Chair is being quite economical with the truth.
Dear Dr Lisse,
I am getting quite tired of the repeated disrespect you are showing to our colleagues, and your unfair attempts to impugne their integrity.
The communique was proposed to the meeting and read out. Participants were invited to comment; there being no substantive comments, the communique was accepted. I don't know what more deliberation you could want. The handling was entirely proper and normal.
Your attacks on León are without a shred of justification, as were your previous attacks on our co-chairs. He deserves your apology, as do they; if you choose to withhold it, that reflects upon you, not on them.
Perhaps you might wish to reflect on how counter-productive your approach is to any effort to persuade colleagues to give their attention to your interventions, and the disservice you are doing your own cause thereby.
I am a proud proponent of the multistakeholder model. Many on this list are new to this model, and unused to the opportunity openness to all does give to those who wish to be rude and disruptive. I am embarrassed to think how they must feel when they see this spat, and the other occasions you have mistreated colleagues here.
I can only hope that our new colleagues can look past the behaviour of one individual and recognise the deep well of cooperation and goodwill that characterises the rest of our work. I hope they can still find it in themselves to agree with me that the great achievement of building a broad base of consensus in such a challenging area is worth even the inconvenience of suffering such rudeness.
I am sorry I have had to be so blunt, but remaining silent felt too much like complicity in an injustice.
Sincerely,
Malcolm Hutty.
-- 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 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Agreed. The chairs have done an excellent job! Regards, Bruce Tonkin -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Monday, 22 June 2015 9:16 PM To: 'Malcolm Hutty'; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía' Cc: 'CCWG Accountability' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communique - revised - any feedback by midnight Argentina time Colleagues It seems to me worth recording, for "the record" that our colleague so frequently alludes to, some thoughts about the leadership of our group. Given the frequency and vituperative nature of the criticism emanating from one corner, I would not want silence in our discussions to in any way betoken agreement or assent. When some future historian looks back on these proceedings they might mistake volume for accuracy and lack of contradiction for agreement. That is most certainly not the case (at least not for me, and I suspect for many others). I, for one, began this process with a modest amount of optimism that it could prove productive and a healthy dollop of skepticism that so unwieldy a process could be effectively managed. In 35 years in government and the private sector I have seen any number of committees with a much narrower mandate and a much smaller membership flounder and fail. We should all, therefore, reflect that our co-Chairs and rapporteurs have, through their efforts, managed to push us along this far and this effectively. They have run an open and transparent process. They have been inclusive. They have moved the discussion along (perhaps too fast for some, but well within the bounds of reasonableness). They have exhibited patience beyond measure (I, personally, would long ago have asked the chartering organization to recall its member). And, to their very great credit, they have allowed the process to run without imposing their own views -- indeed, I would be hard pressed to state exactly what they might be -- an exercise in restraint that deserves praise. In short, by any objective measure our co-Chairs have done a fine job. It has not been perfect, to be sure, but it has met every objective test of reasonableness that one can devise. I reject utterly any suggestion of bias, animus, or dishonesty. Those are baseless puerile allegations that reflect more on the nature of the accuser, whose views will, I am sure, be seen in retrospect as baseless. Regards 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 -----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm@linx.net] Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 4:59 PM To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Cc: List ccTLD Community; CCWG Accountability; Lisse Eberhard; <ccnso-members@icann.org>; cctldworld@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communique - revised - any feedback by midnight Argentina time On 21/06/2015 21:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Your Co-Chair is being quite economical with the truth.
Dear Dr Lisse, I am getting quite tired of the repeated disrespect you are showing to our colleagues, and your unfair attempts to impugne their integrity. The communique was proposed to the meeting and read out. Participants were invited to comment; there being no substantive comments, the communique was accepted. I don't know what more deliberation you could want. The handling was entirely proper and normal. Your attacks on León are without a shred of justification, as were your previous attacks on our co-chairs. He deserves your apology, as do they; if you choose to withhold it, that reflects upon you, not on them. Perhaps you might wish to reflect on how counter-productive your approach is to any effort to persuade colleagues to give their attention to your interventions, and the disservice you are doing your own cause thereby. I am a proud proponent of the multistakeholder model. Many on this list are new to this model, and unused to the opportunity openness to all does give to those who wish to be rude and disruptive. I am embarrassed to think how they must feel when they see this spat, and the other occasions you have mistreated colleagues here. I can only hope that our new colleagues can look past the behaviour of one individual and recognise the deep well of cooperation and goodwill that characterises the rest of our work. I hope they can still find it in themselves to agree with me that the great achievement of building a broad base of consensus in such a challenging area is worth even the inconvenience of suffering such rudeness. I am sorry I have had to be so blunt, but remaining silent felt too much like complicity in an injustice. Sincerely, Malcolm Hutty. -- 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 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY 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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
That is an extremely revealing statement. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jun 22, 2015, at 19:08, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Agreed. The chairs have done an excellent job!
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 12:01 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
That is not correct. It was read out loud, circulated for feedback and then published.
I was remote and i heard it when it was read, including making comment. Regards
Objection noted.
Best regards,
León
El 21/06/2015, a las 11:57, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> escribió:
So what I hear that it was drafted by the Co-Chairs during lunch is correct. Never mind that it was not deliberated by the plenum.
Since the statement uses past tense it is at best misleading.
So, for the record, I object against the statement.
greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 21, 2015, at 09:46, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
This was drafted before the end of our working day session, read out loud to attendants and circulated for feedback.
Best regards,
León
El 21/06/2015, a las 9:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have not received a substantive response to my request.
My understanding is that it was drafted before the meeting was finished, over lunch.
I demand an answer.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jun 19, 2015, at 23:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> wrote:
When EXACTLY was this drafted?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 19, 2015, at 17:10, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this.
I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading.
*Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of sending)*.
cheers Jordan
[...] _______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *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>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Thanks Best regards 2015-06-19 15:10 GMT-05:00 Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>:
Hi all
Attached in doc and pdf are the updated communique - clean, and showing all the changes tracked. Mathieu finalised this.
I've also pasted the clean version below for easy reading.
*Any comments or issues please to the list or the co-chairs by midnight Argentina time (around seven hours from time of sending)*.
cheers Jordan
*Members and participants of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) met in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on June 19, 2015.*
The CCWG face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina, was attended in-person by XXXX members and participants, as well as by a number of participants and observers that joined the meeting remotely using the virtual meeting room. XXX Advisors also participated.
The group discussed the summaries it had earlier prepared of the comments received from the community during the first public comment period on its initial draft report ( https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-201...) and can report the following:
Broad support was received for the overall accountability architecture proposed, based on on 4 building blocks, i.e. an empowered community, the Board, the Bylaws and the Independent Review Process.
Most comments considered the proposals would be improvements to ICANN’s current accountability mechanisms.
Several commenters recommended the CCWG take a more detailed look at the accountability of the community itself (the SOs and ACs) and also to ensure that ICANN is accountable to all stakeholders, including those outside ICANN.
While most commenters expressed support for the recommendations, some expressed concerns primarily regarding implementation details, legal implications and complexity, as well as on the underlying costs and risks associated with the proposals.
The CCWG values the input received so far and will continue working to refine its initial draft report.
While encouraged by the support received on the overall approach, the group acknowledges the concerns expressed and will give due consideration to suggestions and concerns as it develops a revised proposal in preparation for the upcoming second public comment period.
With regards to the community empowerment mechanism, the CCWG considered various models presented in the meeting and acknowledged commonality of views with regards to expectations of such models, including the need to set up mutual accountability, and enhancements to openness and diversity.
In particular, a number of commenters have raised concerns with the reference model. In that model, SOs and ACs would be required to set up separate legal entities, such as formally registering unincorporated associations, as their legal vehicle to exercise community powers. Feedback suggested that the community sees this model as too complex. The CCWG has analyzed these comments carefully and will now focus its work on a refined model. This fresh approach, provisionally called the Empowered SO/AC model, gives the community comparable authority while not adding legal entities separate from the SOs and ACs.
The CCWG also considered public comments related to the dependencies with the CWG-Stewardship's final proposal. As the CWG’s proposal is under consideration by Chartering organizations, the CCWG notes that each of the items that the CWG has identified as critical to its proposal received overall support from the community. None of the comments suggested that CWG requirements could or should not be met.
The CCWG will share these outcomes and considerations with the various groups and communities during ICANN 53. The group looks forward to continuing the fruitful exchanges that inform further deliberations towards a second round of public comment, which is expected to be published by the end of July.
*Note*: video summaries of the basic accountability approach are available:
- English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h8i2exC6HA
- French: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YodtRRNymkU
- Spanish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLALPEOlrHk)
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
*A better world through a better Internet *
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Antonio Medina Gómez Presidente Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet presidencia@acui.co @amedinagomez Skype amedinagomez Celular 3118689626
participants (18)
-
"Carlos Raúl G." -
Antonio Medina Gómez -
Bruce Tonkin -
Chris LaHatte -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Drazek, Keith -
Greg Shatan -
James Gannon -
James M. Bladel -
Jordan Carter -
Kavouss Arasteh -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Malcolm Hutty -
McAuley, David -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Roelof Meijer -
Seun Ojedeji