[CCWG-Accountability] High Level Statement for CWG-Stewardship
Hi all, Attached is the High Level Statement discussed on the call. The chairs plan to submit at 15:00 UTC. Please provide your comments. Best, Grace From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:24 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG ACCT call details 06 Jan 12:00 UTC Dear all, The notes and Adobe Connect recordings and transcript (soon) for the CCWG ACCT Call on 06 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414985 · Action Item: Co-Chairs will recap WS1 and WS2 items on mailing list and review for approval at next meeting · Action Item: Colleagues to provide comments on the list in response to the document. Proposed edits are welcome. Goal to develop a common view on scoping. Will be an agenda item for the next call and the Frankfurt meeting. Public interest issues, ccTLD concerns and other issues to be identified. · Action Item: The statement will be published on the CCWG list for further comment. The next call is on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 at 06:00 UTC. Best, Brenda
Thanks for it. Fine with me, Giovanni Giovanni Seppia External Relations Manager EURid Woluwelaan 150 1831 Diegem - Belgium TEL: +32 (0) 2 401 2750 MOB:+39 335 8141733 giovanni.seppia@eurid.eu<mailto:giovanni.seppia@eurid.eu> http://www.eurid.eu<http://www.eurid.eu/> <http://christmas2014.eurid.eu> Please consider the environment before printing this email. <https://www.facebook.com/EUregistry><https://www.facebook.com/EUregistry> <https://www.facebook.com/EUregistry> <https://www.facebook.com/EUregistry> <https://www.facebook.com/EUregistry> <https://www.facebook.com/EUregistry><https://www.facebook.com/EUregistry> <https://www.facebook.com/EUregistry><https://www.facebook.com/EUregistry> <https://www.facebook.com/EUregistry> <https://www.facebook.com/EUregistry> On 07 Jan 2015, at 10:40, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, Attached is the High Level Statement discussed on the call. The chairs plan to submit at 15:00 UTC. Please provide your comments. Best, Grace From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:24 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG ACCT call details 06 Jan 12:00 UTC <image001.gif> Dear all, The notes and Adobe Connect recordings and transcript (soon) for the CCWG ACCT Call on 06 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414985 · Action Item: Co-Chairs will recap WS1 and WS2 items on mailing list and review for approval at next meeting · Action Item: Colleagues to provide comments on the list in response to the document. Proposed edits are welcome. Goal to develop a common view on scoping. Will be an agenda item for the next call and the Frankfurt meeting. Public interest issues, ccTLD concerns and other issues to be identified. · Action Item: The statement will be published on the CCWG list for further comment. The next call is on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 at 06:00 UTC. Best, Brenda <image001.gif><High Level Statement.docx><High Level Statement.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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 Disclaimer: This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses. http://www.eurid.eu/en/legal-disclaimer
Thank you, fine with me. el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jan 7, 2015, at 11:40, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
Attached is the High Level Statement discussed on the call. The chairs plan to submit at 15:00 UTC. Please provide your comments.
Best, Grace
From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:24 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG ACCT call details 06 Jan 12:00 UTC
<image001.gif> Dear all,
The notes and Adobe Connect recordings and transcript (soon) for the CCWG ACCT Call on 06 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414985
· Action Item: Co-Chairs will recap WS1 and WS2 items on mailing list and review for approval at next meeting · Action Item: Colleagues to provide comments on the list in response to the document. Proposed edits are welcome. Goal to develop a common view on scoping. Will be an agenda item for the next call and the Frankfurt meeting. Public interest issues, ccTLD concerns and other issues to be identified. · Action Item: The statement will be published on the CCWG list for further comment.
The next call is on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 at 06:00 UTC.
Best, Brenda
<image001.gif> <High Level Statement.docx> <High Level Statement.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thank Grace I am not sure what the intent of this sentence is: /Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, decisions that are directly related to IANA Functions shall be within the remit of such mechanisms./// Could we not delete the above and add the following on from the priorsentence as follows (if it captures the intent of the above): “The CCWG-Accountability is therefore considering addressing this need in its Work Stream 1 (WS1) /and will //keep the CWG stewardship apprised of any potential IANA-related implications./” Matthew On 1/7/2015 9:40 AM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Hi all,
Attached is the High Level Statement discussed on the call. The chairs plan to submit at 15:00 UTC. Please provide your comments.
Best, Grace
From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:24 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG ACCT call details 06 Jan 12:00 UTC
Dear all,
The notes and Adobe Connect recordings and transcript (soon) for the CCWG ACCT Call on 06 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414985
·*Action Item: Co-Chairs will recap WS1 and WS2 items on mailing list and review for approval at next meeting***
*·**Action Item: Colleagues to provide comments on the list in response to the document. Proposed edits are welcome. Goal to develop a common view on *
*scoping. Will be an agenda item for the next call and the Frankfurt meeting. Public interest issues, ccTLD concerns and other issues to be identified.*
·*Action Item: The statement will be published on the CCWG list for further comment.*
The next call is on *Tuesday, 13 January 2015 **at 06:00 UTC**. *
Best,
Brenda
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987
Matthew, Thanks for calling out that sentence. Assuming "such mechanisms" means "independent mechanisms enabling to review and, when appropriate, redress, decisions from the ICANN Board of Directors," which the co-Chairs say the CCWG is considering addressing in WS1, the full sense of the sentence (editing slightly for clarity) is: Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, Board decisions that are directly related to IANA Functions will be within the remit of independent mechanisms for the review and redress of decisions of the ICANN Board of Directors, which the CCWG-Accountability may address in Work Stream 1. This is an interesting, and potentially troubling, statement. It appears to contradict the Charters of both the CWG and the CCWG, The CWG Charter states "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of this working group." The CCWG Charter states "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship. This creates an awkward situation on several levels: Can this action be reconciled with the Charters? In other words, does "implementation and operational accountability" for the "administration of the IANA functions" include Board "decisions directly related to IANA functions"? If this is properly within the CWG's scope, can the CCWG change both group's scope without amending the Charters? Why does this say that the CCWG will proceed this way unless the CWG objects, rather than seeking agreement from the CWG? IF the CWG agrees (or more accurately, fails to object), then the CCWG's WS1 will include mechanisms for review and redress of Board decisions directly related to IANA functions. Does this mean that the CWG is ceding its ability to create such mechanisms as part of its proposal, and that any such accountability must await the CCWG's work? Or does this mean that the CWG will also create such mechanisms, which could be overlapping and contradictory of the CCWG's mechanisms? Or should the CWG object? How can this be reconciled with the Independent Appeals Panel proposed by the CWG in its Draft Proposal? Should this be limited to appeals of IANA action/inaction and not address Board decisisons relating to IANA action/inaction? Is this a sensible dividing line? What is the proper way for the CWG and CCWG to address this? Collaborate? Draw clearer lines of demarcation? Shift responsibilities away from the model contemplated in the Charter? Very interesting. Greg Shatan On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
Thank Grace
I am not sure what the intent of this sentence is:
*Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, decisions that are directly related to IANA Functions shall be within the remit of such mechanisms.*
Could we not delete the above and add the following on from the prior sentence as follows (if it captures the intent of the above):
“The CCWG-Accountability is therefore considering addressing this need in its Work Stream 1 (WS1) *and will **keep the CWG stewardship apprised of any potential IANA-related implications.*”
Matthew
On 1/7/2015 9:40 AM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Hi all,
Attached is the High Level Statement discussed on the call. The chairs plan to submit at 15:00 UTC. Please provide your comments.
Best, Grace
From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:24 PM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG ACCT call details 06 Jan 12:00 UTC
Dear all,
The notes and Adobe Connect recordings and transcript (soon) for the CCWG ACCT Call on 06 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414985
· *Action Item: Co-Chairs will recap WS1 and WS2 items on mailing list and review for approval at next meeting*
*· * *Action Item: Colleagues to provide comments on the list in response to the document. Proposed edits are welcome. Goal to develop a common view on *
*scoping. Will be an agenda item for the next call and the Frankfurt meeting. Public interest issues, ccTLD concerns and other issues to be identified.*
· *Action Item: The statement will be published on the CCWG list for further comment.*
The next call is on *Tuesday, 13 January 2015 **at 06:00 UTC**. *
Best,
Brenda
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears@cdt.org+ 44 771 247 2987
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Greg, Matthew and Robin, thanks for your comments and sharing your concerns. Firstly, the sentence you make reference to relates to the mechanisms mentioned in the first sentence of statement 1, i.e. independent mechsnisms enabling.... However, I am more than happy to include the suggested clarification. Secondly, I do not see the issue with the Charters. The CWG has asked us for input and it is our suggestion to respond to them that the independent mechanism we are considering _could_ also be used for the needs of the CWG, i.e. IANA related issues. Let us assume that we would recommend the creation of a "review panel" (just for the sake of giving an example). We would then need to specify what decisions such review panel can take, i.e. we would need to define responsibilities / scope. We would list the items or areas of concern arising from the issues we are chartered with, i.e. we would recommend an accountability mechanism well within our Charter. The message we intend to send here is that the CWG (unless it advises otherwise) can also use this review panel (to stay with the the example) and add IANA related issues to the list of responsibilities of the review panel. This is optional for them as we cannot prescribe what they will suggest. If they chose, however, to pick up the idea, they could build on our suggestion. We could amend the sentence as follows:
Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, Board decisions that are directly related to IANA Functions COUD BE ADDED TO the remit of THE AFOREMENTIONED independent mechanisms for the review and redress of decisions of the ICANN Board of Directors, which the CCWG-Accountability may address in Work Stream 1.
I hope this helps clarify the issue. Finally, please do rest assured that we seek to work with the CWG closely. My personal view is that collaboration is key. Thanks, Thomas -- thomas-rickert.tel
Am 07.01.2015 um 19:36 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Matthew,
Thanks for calling out that sentence. Assuming "such mechanisms" means "independent mechanisms enabling to review and, when appropriate, redress, decisions from the ICANN Board of Directors," which the co-Chairs say the CCWG is considering addressing in WS1, the full sense of the sentence (editing slightly for clarity) is:
Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, Board decisions that are directly related to IANA Functions will be within the remit of independent mechanisms for the review and redress of decisions of the ICANN Board of Directors, which the CCWG-Accountability may address in Work Stream 1.
This is an interesting, and potentially troubling, statement. It appears to contradict the Charters of both the CWG and the CCWG, The CWG Charter states "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of this working group." The CCWG Charter states "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship.
This creates an awkward situation on several levels:
Can this action be reconciled with the Charters? In other words, does "implementation and operational accountability" for the "administration of the IANA functions" include Board "decisions directly related to IANA functions"? If this is properly within the CWG's scope, can the CCWG change both group's scope without amending the Charters? Why does this say that the CCWG will proceed this way unless the CWG objects, rather than seeking agreement from the CWG?
IF the CWG agrees (or more accurately, fails to object), then the CCWG's WS1 will include mechanisms for review and redress of Board decisions directly related to IANA functions. Does this mean that the CWG is ceding its ability to create such mechanisms as part of its proposal, and that any such accountability must await the CCWG's work? Or does this mean that the CWG will also create such mechanisms, which could be overlapping and contradictory of the CCWG's mechanisms? Or should the CWG object?
How can this be reconciled with the Independent Appeals Panel proposed by the CWG in its Draft Proposal? Should this be limited to appeals of IANA action/inaction and not address Board decisisons relating to IANA action/inaction? Is this a sensible dividing line?
What is the proper way for the CWG and CCWG to address this? Collaborate? Draw clearer lines of demarcation? Shift responsibilities away from the model contemplated in the Charter?
Very interesting.
Greg Shatan
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote: Thank Grace
I am not sure what the intent of this sentence is:
Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, decisions that are directly related to IANA Functions shall be within the remit of such mechanisms.
Could we not delete the above and add the following on from the prior sentence as follows (if it captures the intent of the above):
“The CCWG-Accountability is therefore considering addressing this need in its Work Stream 1 (WS1) and will keep the CWG stewardship apprised of any potential IANA-related implications.”
Matthew
On 1/7/2015 9:40 AM, Grace Abuhamad wrote: Hi all,
Attached is the High Level Statement discussed on the call. The chairs plan to submit at 15:00 UTC. Please provide your comments.
Best, Grace
From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:24 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG ACCT call details 06 Jan 12:00 UTC
Dear all,
The notes and Adobe Connect recordings and transcript (soon) for the CCWG ACCT Call on 06 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414985
· Action Item: Co-Chairs will recap WS1 and WS2 items on mailing list and review for approval at next meeting · Action Item: Colleagues to provide comments on the list in response to the document. Proposed edits are welcome. Goal to develop a common view on scoping. Will be an agenda item for the next call and the Frankfurt meeting. Public interest issues, ccTLD concerns and other issues to be identified. · Action Item: The statement will be published on the CCWG list for further comment.
The next call is on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 at 06:00 UTC.
Best,
Brenda
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987
_______________________________________________ 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
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 7 Jan 2015 20:50, "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Greg, Matthew and Robin, thanks for your comments and sharing your concerns.
We could amend the sentence as follows:
Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, Board decisions that are
directly related to IANA Functions COUD BE ADDED TO the remit of THE AFOREMENTIONED independent mechanisms for the review and redress of decisions of the ICANN Board of Directors, which the CCWG-Accountability may address in Work Stream 1.
Considering that the statement is trying to ascertain who does what, I agree with the rewording. Minor- please note the spelling "could" also the word "aforementioned" may not be necessary when read within the context of the entire message
I hope this helps clarify the issue.
Thanks
Finally, please do rest assured that we seek to work with the CWG closely. My personal view is that collaboration is key.
Thanks, Thomas
-- thomas-rickert.tel
Am 07.01.2015 um 19:36 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Matthew,
Thanks for calling out that sentence. Assuming "such mechanisms" means "independent mechanisms enabling to review and, when appropriate, redress, decisions from the ICANN Board of Directors," which the co-Chairs say the CCWG is considering addressing in WS1, the full sense of the sentence (editing slightly for clarity) is:
Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, Board decisions that are directly related to IANA Functions will be within the remit of independent mechanisms for the review and redress of decisions of the ICANN Board of Directors, which the CCWG-Accountability may address in Work Stream 1.
This is an interesting, and potentially troubling, statement. It appears to contradict the Charters of both the CWG and the CCWG, The CWG Charter states "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of this working group." The CCWG Charter states "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship.
This creates an awkward situation on several levels:
Can this action be reconciled with the Charters? In other words, does "implementation and operational accountability" for the "administration of the IANA functions" include Board "decisions directly related to IANA functions"? If this is properly within the CWG's scope, can the CCWG change both group's scope without amending the Charters? Why does this say that the CCWG will proceed this way unless the CWG objects, rather than seeking agreement from the CWG?
IF the CWG agrees (or more accurately, fails to object), then the CCWG's WS1 will include mechanisms for review and redress of Board decisions directly related to IANA functions. Does this mean that the CWG is ceding its ability to create such mechanisms as part of its proposal, and that any such accountability must await the CCWG's work? Or does this mean that the CWG will also create such mechanisms, which could be overlapping and contradictory of the CCWG's mechanisms? Or should the CWG object?
How can this be reconciled with the Independent Appeals Panel proposed by the CWG in its Draft Proposal? Should this be limited to appeals of IANA action/inaction and not address Board decisisons relating to IANA action/inaction? Is this a sensible dividing line?
What is the proper way for the CWG and CCWG to address this? Collaborate? Draw clearer lines of demarcation? Shift responsibilities away from the model contemplated in the Charter?
Very interesting.
Greg Shatan
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
Thank Grace
I am not sure what the intent of this sentence is:
Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, decisions that are
directly related to IANA Functions shall be within the remit of such mechanisms.
Could we not delete the above and add the following on from the prior
sentence as follows (if it captures the intent of the above):
“The CCWG-Accountability is therefore considering addressing this need
in its Work Stream 1 (WS1) and will keep the CWG stewardship apprised of any potential IANA-related implications.”
Matthew
On 1/7/2015 9:40 AM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Hi all,
Attached is the High Level Statement discussed on the call. The chairs
plan to submit at 15:00 UTC. Please provide your comments.
Best, Grace
From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:24 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <
accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG ACCT call details 06 Jan 12:00 UTC
Dear all,
The notes and Adobe Connect recordings and transcript (soon) for the CCWG ACCT Call on 06 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414985
· Action Item: Co-Chairs will recap WS1 and WS2 items on mailing list and review for approval at next meeting
· Action Item: Colleagues to provide comments on the list in response to the document. Proposed edits are welcome. Goal to develop a common view on
scoping. Will be an agenda item for the next call and the Frankfurt meeting. Public interest issues, ccTLD concerns and other issues to be identified.
·
Action Item: The statement will be published on the CCWG list for further comment.
The next call is on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 at 06:00 UTC.
Best,
Brenda
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987
_______________________________________________ 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
Hallo All, Once the proposed changes are addressed, I support circulation of the statement by the chairs. Regards Fiona Asonga ----- Original Message ----- From: "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> To: "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 8:02:37 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] High Level Statement for CWG-Stewardship sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 7 Jan 2015 20:50, "Thomas Rickert" < rickert@anwaelte.de > wrote:
Greg, Matthew and Robin, thanks for your comments and sharing your concerns.
We could amend the sentence as follows:
Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, Board decisions that are directly related to IANA Functions COUD BE ADDED TO the remit of THE AFOREMENTIONED independent mechanisms for the review and redress of decisions of the ICANN Board of Directors, which the CCWG-Accountability may address in Work Stream 1.
Considering that the statement is trying to ascertain who does what, I agree with the rewording. Minor- please note the spelling "could" also the word "aforementioned" may not be necessary when read within the context of the entire message
I hope this helps clarify the issue.
Thanks
Finally, please do rest assured that we seek to work with the CWG closely. My personal view is that collaboration is key.
Thanks, Thomas
-- thomas-rickert.tel
Am 07.01.2015 um 19:36 schrieb Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com >:
Matthew,
Thanks for calling out that sentence. Assuming "such mechanisms" means "independent mechanisms enabling to review and, when appropriate, redress, decisions from the ICANN Board of Directors," which the co-Chairs say the CCWG is considering addressing in WS1, the full sense of the sentence (editing slightly for clarity) is:
Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, Board decisions that are directly related to IANA Functions will be within the remit of independent mechanisms for the review and redress of decisions of the ICANN Board of Directors, which the CCWG-Accountability may address in Work Stream 1.
This is an interesting, and potentially troubling, statement. It appears to contradict the Charters of both the CWG and the CCWG, The CWG Charter states "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of this working group." The CCWG Charter states "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship.
This creates an awkward situation on several levels:
Can this action be reconciled with the Charters? In other words, does "implementation and operational accountability" for the "administration of the IANA functions" include Board "decisions directly related to IANA functions"? If this is properly within the CWG's scope, can the CCWG change both group's scope without amending the Charters? Why does this say that the CCWG will proceed this way unless the CWG objects, rather than seeking agreement from the CWG?
IF the CWG agrees (or more accurately, fails to object), then the CCWG's WS1 will include mechanisms for review and redress of Board decisions directly related to IANA functions. Does this mean that the CWG is ceding its ability to create such mechanisms as part of its proposal, and that any such accountability must await the CCWG's work? Or does this mean that the CWG will also create such mechanisms, which could be overlapping and contradictory of the CCWG's mechanisms? Or should the CWG object?
How can this be reconciled with the Independent Appeals Panel proposed by the CWG in its Draft Proposal? Should this be limited to appeals of IANA action/inaction and not address Board decisisons relating to IANA action/inaction? Is this a sensible dividing line?
What is the proper way for the CWG and CCWG to address this? Collaborate? Draw clearer lines of demarcation? Shift responsibilities away from the model contemplated in the Charter?
Very interesting.
Greg Shatan
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Matthew Shears < mshears@cdt.org > wrote:
Thank Grace
I am not sure what the intent of this sentence is:
Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, decisions that are directly related to IANA Functions shall be within the remit of such mechanisms.
Could we not delete the above and add the following on from the prior sentence as follows (if it captures the intent of the above):
“The CCWG-Accountability is therefore considering addressing this need in its Work Stream 1 (WS1) and will keep the CWG stewardship apprised of any potential IANA-related implications.”
Matthew
On 1/7/2015 9:40 AM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Hi all,
Attached is the High Level Statement discussed on the call. The chairs plan to submit at 15:00 UTC. Please provide your comments.
Best, Grace
From: Brenda Brewer < brenda.brewer@icann.org > Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:24 PM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org > Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG ACCT call details 06 Jan 12:00 UTC
Dear all,
The notes and Adobe Connect recordings and transcript (soon) for the CCWG ACCT Call on 06 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414985
· Action Item: Co-Chairs will recap WS1 and WS2 items on mailing list and review for approval at next meeting
· Action Item: Colleagues to provide comments on the list in response to the document. Proposed edits are welcome. Goal to develop a common view on
scoping. Will be an agenda item for the next call and the Frankfurt meeting. Public interest issues, ccTLD concerns and other issues to be identified.
· Action Item: The statement will be published on the CCWG list for further comment.
The next call is on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 at 06:00 UTC.
Best,
Brenda
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987
_______________________________________________ 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
I think that this re-working of the sentence resolves my concerns. I might suggest using "such" instead of "the aforementioned". Thank you for this. I also agree collaboration is key, and that only becomes clearer as we progress. Greg On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Fiona Asonga <fasonga@kixp.or.ke> wrote:
Hallo All,
Once the proposed changes are addressed, I support circulation of the statement by the chairs.
Regards
Fiona Asonga
------------------------------ *From: *"Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> *To: *"Thomas Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de> *Cc: *accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Sent: *Thursday, January 8, 2015 8:02:37 AM *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-Accountability] High Level Statement for CWG-Stewardship
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 7 Jan 2015 20:50, "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Greg, Matthew and Robin, thanks for your comments and sharing your concerns.
We could amend the sentence as follows:
Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, Board decisions that
are directly related to IANA Functions COUD BE ADDED TO the remit of THE AFOREMENTIONED independent mechanisms for the review and redress of decisions of the ICANN Board of Directors, which the CCWG-Accountability may address in Work Stream 1.
Considering that the statement is trying to ascertain who does what, I agree with the rewording. Minor- please note the spelling "could" also the word "aforementioned" may not be necessary when read within the context of the entire message
I hope this helps clarify the issue.
Thanks
Finally, please do rest assured that we seek to work with the CWG closely. My personal view is that collaboration is key.
Thanks, Thomas
-- thomas-rickert.tel
Am 07.01.2015 um 19:36 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Matthew,
Thanks for calling out that sentence. Assuming "such mechanisms" means "independent mechanisms enabling to review and, when appropriate, redress, decisions from the ICANN Board of Directors," which the co-Chairs say the CCWG is considering addressing in WS1, the full sense of the sentence (editing slightly for clarity) is:
Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, Board decisions that are directly related to IANA Functions will be within the remit of independent mechanisms for the review and redress of decisions of the ICANN Board of Directors, which the CCWG-Accountability may address in Work Stream 1.
This is an interesting, and potentially troubling, statement. It appears to contradict the Charters of both the CWG and the CCWG, The CWG Charter states "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of this working group." The CCWG Charter states "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship.
This creates an awkward situation on several levels:
Can this action be reconciled with the Charters? In other words, does "implementation and operational accountability" for the "administration of the IANA functions" include Board "decisions directly related to IANA functions"? If this is properly within the CWG's scope, can the CCWG change both group's scope without amending the Charters? Why does this say that the CCWG will proceed this way unless the CWG objects, rather than seeking agreement from the CWG?
IF the CWG agrees (or more accurately, fails to object), then the CCWG's WS1 will include mechanisms for review and redress of Board decisions directly related to IANA functions. Does this mean that the CWG is ceding its ability to create such mechanisms as part of its proposal, and that any such accountability must await the CCWG's work? Or does this mean that the CWG will also create such mechanisms, which could be overlapping and contradictory of the CCWG's mechanisms? Or should the CWG object?
How can this be reconciled with the Independent Appeals Panel proposed by the CWG in its Draft Proposal? Should this be limited to appeals of IANA action/inaction and not address Board decisisons relating to IANA action/inaction? Is this a sensible dividing line?
What is the proper way for the CWG and CCWG to address this? Collaborate? Draw clearer lines of demarcation? Shift responsibilities away from the model contemplated in the Charter?
Very interesting.
Greg Shatan
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
Thank Grace
I am not sure what the intent of this sentence is:
Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, decisions that are
directly related to IANA Functions shall be within the remit of such mechanisms.
Could we not delete the above and add the following on from the prior
sentence as follows (if it captures the intent of the above):
“The CCWG-Accountability is therefore considering addressing this
need in its Work Stream 1 (WS1) and will keep the CWG stewardship apprised of any potential IANA-related implications.”
Matthew
On 1/7/2015 9:40 AM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Hi all,
Attached is the High Level Statement discussed on the call. The
chairs plan to submit at 15:00 UTC. Please provide your comments.
Best, Grace
From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:24 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <
accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG ACCT call details 06 Jan 12:00 UTC
Dear all,
The notes and Adobe Connect recordings and transcript (soon) for the CCWG ACCT Call on 06 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414985
· Action Item: Co-Chairs will recap WS1 and WS2 items on mailing list and review for approval at next meeting
· Action Item: Colleagues to provide comments on the list in response to the document. Proposed edits are welcome. Goal to develop a common view on
scoping. Will be an agenda item for the next call and the Frankfurt meeting. Public interest issues, ccTLD concerns and other issues to be identified.
·
Action Item: The statement will be published on the CCWG list for further comment.
The next call is on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 at 06:00 UTC.
Best,
Brenda
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Grace, Thanks. +1 Fiona Re-worked sentences and correction before submission. Regards. -Akinbo. On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that this re-working of the sentence resolves my concerns. I might suggest using "such" instead of "the aforementioned". Thank you for this.
I also agree collaboration is key, and that only becomes clearer as we progress.
Greg
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Fiona Asonga <fasonga@kixp.or.ke> wrote:
Hallo All,
Once the proposed changes are addressed, I support circulation of the statement by the chairs.
Regards
Fiona Asonga
------------------------------ *From: *"Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> *To: *"Thomas Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de> *Cc: *accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Sent: *Thursday, January 8, 2015 8:02:37 AM *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-Accountability] High Level Statement for CWG-Stewardship
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 7 Jan 2015 20:50, "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Greg, Matthew and Robin, thanks for your comments and sharing your concerns.
We could amend the sentence as follows:
Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, Board decisions that
are directly related to IANA Functions COUD BE ADDED TO the remit of THE AFOREMENTIONED independent mechanisms for the review and redress of decisions of the ICANN Board of Directors, which the CCWG-Accountability may address in Work Stream 1.
Considering that the statement is trying to ascertain who does what, I agree with the rewording. Minor- please note the spelling "could" also the word "aforementioned" may not be necessary when read within the context of the entire message
I hope this helps clarify the issue.
Thanks
Finally, please do rest assured that we seek to work with the CWG closely. My personal view is that collaboration is key.
Thanks, Thomas
-- thomas-rickert.tel
Am 07.01.2015 um 19:36 schrieb Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Matthew,
Thanks for calling out that sentence. Assuming "such mechanisms" means "independent mechanisms enabling to review and, when appropriate, redress, decisions from the ICANN Board of Directors," which the co-Chairs say the CCWG is considering addressing in WS1, the full sense of the sentence (editing slightly for clarity) is:
Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, Board decisions that are directly related to IANA Functions will be within the remit of independent mechanisms for the review and redress of decisions of the ICANN Board of Directors, which the CCWG-Accountability may address in Work Stream 1.
This is an interesting, and potentially troubling, statement. It appears to contradict the Charters of both the CWG and the CCWG, The CWG Charter states "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of this working group." The CCWG Charter states "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship.
This creates an awkward situation on several levels:
Can this action be reconciled with the Charters? In other words, does "implementation and operational accountability" for the "administration of the IANA functions" include Board "decisions directly related to IANA functions"? If this is properly within the CWG's scope, can the CCWG change both group's scope without amending the Charters? Why does this say that the CCWG will proceed this way unless the CWG objects, rather than seeking agreement from the CWG?
IF the CWG agrees (or more accurately, fails to object), then the CCWG's WS1 will include mechanisms for review and redress of Board decisions directly related to IANA functions. Does this mean that the CWG is ceding its ability to create such mechanisms as part of its proposal, and that any such accountability must await the CCWG's work? Or does this mean that the CWG will also create such mechanisms, which could be overlapping and contradictory of the CCWG's mechanisms? Or should the CWG object?
How can this be reconciled with the Independent Appeals Panel proposed by the CWG in its Draft Proposal? Should this be limited to appeals of IANA action/inaction and not address Board decisisons relating to IANA action/inaction? Is this a sensible dividing line?
What is the proper way for the CWG and CCWG to address this? Collaborate? Draw clearer lines of demarcation? Shift responsibilities away from the model contemplated in the Charter?
Very interesting.
Greg Shatan
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
Thank Grace
I am not sure what the intent of this sentence is:
Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, decisions that are
directly related to IANA Functions shall be within the remit of such mechanisms.
Could we not delete the above and add the following on from the prior
sentence as follows (if it captures the intent of the above):
“The CCWG-Accountability is therefore considering addressing this
need in its Work Stream 1 (WS1) and will keep the CWG stewardship apprised of any potential IANA-related implications.”
Matthew
On 1/7/2015 9:40 AM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Hi all,
Attached is the High Level Statement discussed on the call. The
chairs plan to submit at 15:00 UTC. Please provide your comments.
Best, Grace
From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:24 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <
accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG ACCT call details 06 Jan 12:00 UTC
Dear all,
The notes and Adobe Connect recordings and transcript (soon) for the CCWG ACCT Call on 06 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414985
· Action Item: Co-Chairs will recap WS1 and WS2 items on mailing list and review for approval at next meeting
· Action Item: Colleagues to provide comments on the list in response to the document. Proposed edits are welcome. Goal to develop a common view on
scoping. Will be an agenda item for the next call and the Frankfurt meeting. Public interest issues, ccTLD concerns and other issues to be identified.
·
Action Item: The statement will be published on the CCWG list for further comment.
The next call is on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 at 06:00 UTC.
Best,
Brenda
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- *Evang. Akinbo A. A. Cornerstone, Nigeria.* +2348064464545, +2348089118151 | 2BAC511D. www.akinbo.ng *Member, Executive Board of Directors*, Nigeria Internet Registration Association (NiRA) www.nira.org.ng | akinbo@nira.org.ng <akinbo@yips.org.ng> @niraworks *Acting Chief Operating Officer,* DNS Africa Magazine www.dnsafrica.org | akinbo@dnsafrica.org @dnsafrica *National Convener,* Nigerian Youth Coalition on Internet Governance (NG-YCIG) www.ycig.org.ng <http://www.nira.org.ng/> *President,* Young Internet Professionals (YiPS) www.yips.gnbo.com.ng <http://wwwyips.org.ng/> | akinbo@yips.org.ng *The RedHub.* 12, Afonka Odebunmi Street, Lagos State. http://www.theredhub.org/ *National Focal Point ( Nigeria ) 2009-2011.* Global Youth Coalition on HIV/AIDS (a program of TakingITGlobal) www.youthaidscoalition.org www.takingitglobal.com www.iaids.org About me: http://profiles.tigweb.org/pscornerstone
Thanks for catching that phrase, Matt, which I also find troubling and could lead to confusion. I hope we can reword that sentence as suggested (or something similar). Thanks, Robin On Jan 7, 2015, at 3:13 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:
Thank Grace
I am not sure what the intent of this sentence is:
Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, decisions that are directly related to IANA Functions shall be within the remit of such mechanisms.
Could we not delete the above and add the following on from the prior sentence as follows (if it captures the intent of the above):
“The CCWG-Accountability is therefore considering addressing this need in its Work Stream 1 (WS1) and will keep the CWG stewardship apprised of any potential IANA-related implications.”
Matthew
On 1/7/2015 9:40 AM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Hi all,
Attached is the High Level Statement discussed on the call. The chairs plan to submit at 15:00 UTC. Please provide your comments.
Best, Grace
From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:24 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG ACCT call details 06 Jan 12:00 UTC
Dear all,
The notes and Adobe Connect recordings and transcript (soon) for the CCWG ACCT Call on 06 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414985
· Action Item: Co-Chairs will recap WS1 and WS2 items on mailing list and review for approval at next meeting · Action Item: Colleagues to provide comments on the list in response to the document. Proposed edits are welcome. Goal to develop a common view on scoping. Will be an agenda item for the next call and the Frankfurt meeting. Public interest issues, ccTLD concerns and other issues to be identified. · Action Item: The statement will be published on the CCWG list for further comment.
The next call is on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 at 06:00 UTC.
Best, Brenda
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Grace et all: On bullet 1 I think the goal is for "the community" (however that is ultimately defined) to be able to use the "mechanisms" described in bullet 1 to review Board decisions. "Mechanisms" in and of themselves cannot do that. Thanks, Carl From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 4:41 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] High Level Statement for CWG-Stewardship Hi all, Attached is the High Level Statement discussed on the call. The chairs plan to submit at 15:00 UTC. Please provide your comments. Best, Grace From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:24 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG ACCT call details 06 Jan 12:00 UTC [cid:image001.gif@01D02A66.00067B80] Dear all, The notes and Adobe Connect recordings and transcript (soon) for the CCWG ACCT Call on 06 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414985 * Action Item: Co-Chairs will recap WS1 and WS2 items on mailing list and review for approval at next meeting * Action Item: Colleagues to provide comments on the list in response to the document. Proposed edits are welcome. Goal to develop a common view on scoping. Will be an agenda item for the next call and the Frankfurt meeting. Public interest issues, ccTLD concerns and other issues to be identified. * Action Item: The statement will be published on the CCWG list for further comment. The next call is on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 at 06:00 UTC. Best, Brenda
All, please note that we are referring to 15.00 UTC tomorrow Jan 8th. Thanks, Thomas -- thomas-rickert.tel
Am 07.01.2015 um 10:40 schrieb Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>:
Hi all,
Attached is the High Level Statement discussed on the call. The chairs plan to submit at 15:00 UTC. Please provide your comments.
Best, Grace
From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:24 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG ACCT call details 06 Jan 12:00 UTC
<image001.gif> Dear all,
The notes and Adobe Connect recordings and transcript (soon) for the CCWG ACCT Call on 06 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414985
· Action Item: Co-Chairs will recap WS1 and WS2 items on mailing list and review for approval at next meeting · Action Item: Colleagues to provide comments on the list in response to the document. Proposed edits are welcome. Goal to develop a common view on scoping. Will be an agenda item for the next call and the Frankfurt meeting. Public interest issues, ccTLD concerns and other issues to be identified. · Action Item: The statement will be published on the CCWG list for further comment.
The next call is on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 at 06:00 UTC.
Best, Brenda
<image001.gif> <High Level Statement.docx> <High Level Statement.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
A five hour turnaround (from 4:40 to 10:00 am in my timezone) did seem a little short.... Thanks for the clarification. Greg On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
All, please note that we are referring to 15.00 UTC tomorrow Jan 8th.
Thanks, Thomas
-- thomas-rickert.tel
Am 07.01.2015 um 10:40 schrieb Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>:
Hi all,
Attached is the High Level Statement discussed on the call. The chairs plan to submit at 15:00 UTC. Please provide your comments.
Best, Grace
From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:24 PM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG ACCT call details 06 Jan 12:00 UTC
<image001.gif>
Dear all,
The notes and Adobe Connect recordings and transcript (soon) for the CCWG ACCT Call on 06 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414985
· *Action Item: Co-Chairs will recap WS1 and WS2 items on mailing list and review for approval at next meeting*
*· * *Action Item: Colleagues to provide comments on the list in response to the document. Proposed edits are welcome. Goal to develop a common view on *
*scoping. Will be an agenda item for the next call and the Frankfurt meeting. Public interest issues, ccTLD concerns and other issues to be identified.*
· *Action Item: The statement will be published on the CCWG list for further comment.*
The next call is on *Tuesday, 13 January 2015 **at 06:00 UTC**. *
Best,
Brenda
<image001.gif>
<High Level Statement.docx>
<High Level Statement.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
Excellent! On Jan 7, 2015 4:42 PM, "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
Attached is the High Level Statement discussed on the call. The chairs plan to submit at 15:00 UTC. Please provide your comments.
Best, Grace
From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:24 PM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG ACCT call details 06 Jan 12:00 UTC
Dear all,
The notes and Adobe Connect recordings and transcript (soon) for the CCWG ACCT Call on 06 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414985
· *Action Item: Co-Chairs will recap WS1 and WS2 items on mailing list and review for approval at next meeting*
*· * *Action Item: Colleagues to provide comments on the list in response to the document. Proposed edits are welcome. Goal to develop a common view on *
*scoping. Will be an agenda item for the next call and the Frankfurt meeting. Public interest issues, ccTLD concerns and other issues to be identified.*
· *Action Item: The statement will be published on the CCWG list for further comment.*
The next call is on *Tuesday, 13 January 2015 **at 06:00 UTC**. *
Best,
Brenda
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 *Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ... *(CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr [image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me] <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> On 9 January 2015 at 00:39, Drew Noyes <drewnoyes@gmail.com> wrote:
Excellent! On Jan 7, 2015 4:42 PM, "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
Attached is the High Level Statement discussed on the call. The chairs plan to submit at 15:00 UTC. Please provide your comments.
Best, Grace
From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:24 PM To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG ACCT call details 06 Jan 12:00 UTC
Dear all,
The notes and Adobe Connect recordings and transcript (soon) for the CCWG ACCT Call on 06 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414985
· *Action Item: Co-Chairs will recap WS1 and WS2 items on mailing list and review for approval at next meeting*
*· * *Action Item: Colleagues to provide comments on the list in response to the document. Proposed edits are welcome. Goal to develop a common view on *
*scoping. Will be an agenda item for the next call and the Frankfurt meeting. Public interest issues, ccTLD concerns and other issues to be identified.*
· *Action Item: The statement will be published on the CCWG list for further comment.*
The next call is on *Tuesday, 13 January 2015 **at 06:00 UTC**. *
Best,
Brenda
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (13)
-
Adebunmi AKINBO -
Carl Schonander -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Drew Noyes -
Fiona Asonga -
Giovanni Seppia -
Grace Abuhamad -
Greg Shatan -
Matthew Shears -
Robin Gross -
Seun Ojedeji -
Thomas Rickert