CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call
All, As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting. The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist. This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on. We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG for the CCWG Co-chairs.
Is this the same document as earlier this week, or has it been updated? ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> __________ On Nov 12, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>> wrote: All, As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting. The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist. This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on. We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG for the CCWG Co-chairs. <ShortProposalUpdate-2.0.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
Can you send a red line please? On Thursday, November 12, 2015, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting.
The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist.
This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on.
We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments.
Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG
for the CCWG Co-chairs.
I also need to see a redline for this document. Can one please be sent or pointed to? Thanks, Robin On Nov 12, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Can you send a red line please?
On Thursday, November 12, 2015, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> wrote: All,
As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting.
The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist.
This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on.
We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments.
Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG
for the CCWG Co-chairs. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 12/11/2015 23:04, Bernard Turcotte wrote:
All,
As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting.
There has been a major, unacceptable change between the last revision of this document and this one. Concerning the Mission, the previous revision said, on page 30 The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to: * Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to the Domain Name System (DNS) - ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. - ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties (entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain names) That fairly reflected the decision recommendation from the previous draft, at least at the level of detail that appears in this document. The new revision just released removes those statements, and in their place says merely "The CCWG-Accountability is yet to reach consensus on the proposed language that is intended to address contract enforcement and regulation." (page 21) That is not correct. The existing recommendation from our previous draft Report remains intact until replaced. There has been nothing remotely like a consensus to remove it. Please revert to the previous statement. Based on Greg's most recent e-mail, of just a couple of hours ago, I think there are grounds for optimism that there WILL be a broadly based consensus to replace the previous text with his new suggestion. But if that fails, the fall-back is the existing text, not no text at all. The CCWG's existing recommendation remains until we have consensus to change it. It is essential that we follow proper process here, especially on such a crucial issue. Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
-----Original Message----- "The CCWG-Accountability is yet to reach consensus on the proposed language that is intended to address contract enforcement and regulation." (page 21)
That is not correct. The existing recommendation from our previous draft Report remains intact until replaced. There has been nothing remotely like a consensus to remove it. Please revert to the previous statement.
Completely agree with Malcolm here. There is something close to consensus on both contract enforcement and regulation, we are just discussing the _wording_
But if that fails, the fall-back is the existing text, not no text at all. The CCWG's existing recommendation remains until we have consensus to change it.
It is essential that we follow proper process here, especially on such a crucial issue.
Yes, this is incontrovertible.
Dear Bernard, thank you for updating and re-sending the draft! To my understanding, the list of WS2 items on p 29 does not yet reflect the current status of discussions if indeed the latest version is the following: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/AJed%2020151026%20... In that case, “ICANN’s interaction with governments” is currently not part of the draft. Thank you for considering this. Kind regards Sabine Meyer International Digital and Postal Policy, Internet Governance Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy Villemombler Strasse 76, 53123 Bonn GERMANY Phone: +49 228 99615-2948 Fax: + 49 228 99615-2964 E-Mail: sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de<mailto:sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de> Internet: http://www.bmwi.de<http://www.bmwi.de/> Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bernard Turcotte Gesendet: Freitag, 13. November 2015 00:04 An: Accountability Cross Community Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call All, As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting. The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist. This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on. We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG for the CCWG Co-chairs.
Dear Sabine, I think that this is version issue. The version of the document you are referencing is the incorrect one. Indeed, it was part of the transparency issues mentioned in Dublin and, during the CCWG call #65 we specifically discussed the item (see the slides here : https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56144581/WP2%20Issues%202%2... <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56144581/WP2%20Issues%202%2...> &modificationDate=1446529282000&api=v2) and acknowledged that there we had received several requests to address this issue in WS2. Thank you for raising this consistency issue. Best, Mathieu De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Sabine.Meyer@bmwi.bund.de Envoyé : vendredi 13 novembre 2015 15:01 À : turcotte.bernard@gmail.com Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call Dear Bernard, thank you for updating and re-sending the draft! To my understanding, the list of WS2 items on p 29 does not yet reflect the current status of discussions if indeed the latest version is the following: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/AJed%2020151026%20...> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/AJed%2020151026%20... In that case, “ICANN’s interaction with governments” is currently not part of the draft. Thank you for considering this. Kind regards Sabine Meyer International Digital and Postal Policy, Internet Governance Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy Villemombler Strasse 76, 53123 Bonn GERMANY Phone: +49 228 99615-2948 Fax: + 49 228 99615-2964 E-Mail: <mailto:sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de> sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de Internet: <http://www.bmwi.de/> http://www.bmwi.de Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bernard Turcotte Gesendet: Freitag, 13. November 2015 00:04 An: Accountability Cross Community Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call All, As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting. The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist. This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on. We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG for the CCWG Co-chairs.
A few quick comments, since that's all there's time for under this plan. I was only able to review my prior comments against this draft; no time for a full read. 1. Page 11: Petition Process: Is it clear that any individual, regardless of affiliation can begin a petition in any AC/SO for every power? Even removing that AC/SO's appointed director? For example, can Justin Bieber start a petition in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin? If that is what we agreed to, never mind. It just strikes me as odd, and I haven't seen it expressed this way before. (I think we used the passive voice before, which did not identify the "actor" or any limitation on their identity or affiliation.) 2. Page 13: Enforcement Section: This section states that the Community has two options -- (1) mediation/IRP or (2) remove entire Board. This is wrong. The Community also has the option to remove some directors and leave others in place, if the Community beleved that would be sufficient to change the outcome. This would be less disruptive than total recall. I'm concerned that failing to mention this option makes our proposal look too "nuclear" and incapable of nuance. 3. Page 14-15: There are inconsistent descriptions of the ICANN Bylaws. The one at the top of page 14 says that "ICANN Bylaws describe how power is exercised in ICANN...." That might be good if we were engaging in social theory (in which case, the word "hegemony" needs to appear at least once in our document), but we just need a generic description of the purpose of bylaws. The middle of page 15 contains just a description which should be used here as well. 4. Page 22: Draft Bylaw on Human Rights. I don't understand why there is underlining here. It should be removed. Finally, I generally support the treatment of the items that are in flux, but I am hopeful that at least one of them can be "un-fluxed" before this is published.... Greg On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Sabine,
I think that this is version issue. The version of the document you are referencing is the incorrect one.
Indeed, it was part of the transparency issues mentioned in Dublin and, during the CCWG call #65 we specifically discussed the item (see the slides here : https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56144581/WP2%20Issues%202%2...) and acknowledged that there we had received several requests to address this issue in WS2.
Thank you for raising this consistency issue.
Best,
Mathieu
*De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *De la part de* Sabine.Meyer@bmwi.bund.de *Envoyé :* vendredi 13 novembre 2015 15:01 *À :* turcotte.bernard@gmail.com *Cc :* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call
Dear Bernard,
thank you for updating and re-sending the draft!
To my understanding, the list of WS2 items on p 29 does not yet reflect the current status of discussions if indeed the latest version is the following: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/AJed%2020151026%20...
In that case, “ICANN’s interaction with governments” is currently not part of the draft.
Thank you for considering this.
Kind regards
Sabine Meyer
International Digital and Postal Policy, Internet Governance
Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy
Villemombler Strasse 76, 53123 Bonn
GERMANY
Phone: +49 228 99615-2948
Fax: + 49 228 99615-2964
E-Mail: sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de
Internet: http://www.bmwi.de
*Von:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Bernard Turcotte *Gesendet:* Freitag, 13. November 2015 00:04 *An:* Accountability Cross Community *Betreff:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call
All,
As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting.
The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist.
This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on.
We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments.
Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG
for the CCWG Co-chairs.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Greg,
For example, can Justin Bieber start a petition in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin?
I think this is very unlikely as I understand Justin is a huge fan of Bruce and has all his records.... 😄 Chris
On 14 Nov 2015, at 04:01, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
A few quick comments, since that's all there's time for under this plan. I was only able to review my prior comments against this draft; no time for a full read.
1. Page 11: Petition Process: Is it clear that any individual, regardless of affiliation can begin a petition in any AC/SO for every power? Even removing that AC/SO's appointed director? For example, can Justin Bieber start a petition in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin? If that is what we agreed to, never mind. It just strikes me as odd, and I haven't seen it expressed this way before. (I think we used the passive voice before, which did not identify the "actor" or any limitation on their identity or affiliation.)
2. Page 13: Enforcement Section: This section states that the Community has two options -- (1) mediation/IRP or (2) remove entire Board. This is wrong. The Community also has the option to remove some directors and leave others in place, if the Community beleved that would be sufficient to change the outcome. This would be less disruptive than total recall. I'm concerned that failing to mention this option makes our proposal look too "nuclear" and incapable of nuance.
3. Page 14-15: There are inconsistent descriptions of the ICANN Bylaws. The one at the top of page 14 says that "ICANN Bylaws describe how power is exercised in ICANN...." That might be good if we were engaging in social theory (in which case, the word "hegemony" needs to appear at least once in our document), but we just need a generic description of the purpose of bylaws. The middle of page 15 contains just a description which should be used here as well.
4. Page 22: Draft Bylaw on Human Rights. I don't understand why there is underlining here. It should be removed.
Finally, I generally support the treatment of the items that are in flux, but I am hopeful that at least one of them can be "un-fluxed" before this is published....
Greg
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote: Dear Sabine,
I think that this is version issue. The version of the document you are referencing is the incorrect one.
Indeed, it was part of the transparency issues mentioned in Dublin and, during the CCWG call #65 we specifically discussed the item (see the slides here : https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56144581/WP2%20Issues%202%2...) and acknowledged that there we had received several requests to address this issue in WS2.
Thank you for raising this consistency issue.
Best,
Mathieu
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Sabine.Meyer@bmwi.bund.de Envoyé : vendredi 13 novembre 2015 15:01 À : turcotte.bernard@gmail.com Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call
Dear Bernard,
thank you for updating and re-sending the draft!
To my understanding, the list of WS2 items on p 29 does not yet reflect the current status of discussions if indeed the latest version is the following: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/AJed%2020151026%20...
In that case, “ICANN’s interaction with governments” is currently not part of the draft.
Thank you for considering this.
Kind regards
Sabine Meyer
International Digital and Postal Policy, Internet Governance
Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy
Villemombler Strasse 76, 53123 Bonn
GERMANY
Phone: +49 228 99615-2948
Fax: + 49 228 99615-2964
E-Mail: sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de
Internet: http://www.bmwi.de
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bernard Turcotte Gesendet: Freitag, 13. November 2015 00:04 An: Accountability Cross Community Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call
All,
As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting.
The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist.
This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on.
We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments.
Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG
for the CCWG Co-chairs.
_______________________________________________ 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
As recent images were heavily censored we don't know how huge. But could he ask for .CA to be transferred to him? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 13 Nov 2015, at 19:10, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
Hi Greg,
For example, can Justin Bieber start a petition in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin?
I think this is very unlikely as I understand Justin is a huge fan of Bruce and has all his records.... 😄 Chris
On 14 Nov 2015, at 04:01, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
A few quick comments, since that's all there's time for under this plan. I was only able to review my prior comments against this draft; no time for a full read.
1. Page 11: Petition Process: Is it clear that any individual, regardless of affiliation can begin a petition in any AC/SO for every power? Even removing that AC/SO's appointed director? For example, can Justin Bieber start a petition in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin? If that is what we agreed to, never mind. It just strikes me as odd, and I haven't seen it expressed this way before. (I think we used the passive voice before, which did not identify the "actor" or any limitation on their identity or affiliation.)
2. Page 13: Enforcement Section: This section states that the Community has two options -- (1) mediation/IRP or (2) remove entire Board. This is wrong. The Community also has the option to remove some directors and leave others in place, if the Community beleved that would be sufficient to change the outcome. This would be less disruptive than total recall. I'm concerned that failing to mention this option makes our proposal look too "nuclear" and incapable of nuance.
3. Page 14-15: There are inconsistent descriptions of the ICANN Bylaws. The one at the top of page 14 says that "ICANN Bylaws describe how power is exercised in ICANN...." That might be good if we were engaging in social theory (in which case, the word "hegemony" needs to appear at least once in our document), but we just need a generic description of the purpose of bylaws. The middle of page 15 contains just a description which should be used here as well.
4. Page 22: Draft Bylaw on Human Rights. I don't understand why there is underlining here. It should be removed.
Finally, I generally support the treatment of the items that are in flux, but I am hopeful that at least one of them can be "un-fluxed" before this is published....
Greg
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote: Dear Sabine,
I think that this is version issue. The version of the document you are referencing is the incorrect one.
Indeed, it was part of the transparency issues mentioned in Dublin and, during the CCWG call #65 we specifically discussed the item (see the slides here : https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56144581/WP2%20Issues%202%2...) and acknowledged that there we had received several requests to address this issue in WS2.
Thank you for raising this consistency issue.
Best,
Mathieu
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Sabine.Meyer@bmwi.bund.de Envoyé : vendredi 13 novembre 2015 15:01 À : turcotte.bernard@gmail.com Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call
Dear Bernard,
thank you for updating and re-sending the draft!
To my understanding, the list of WS2 items on p 29 does not yet reflect the current status of discussions if indeed the latest version is the following: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/AJed%2020151026%20...
In that case, “ICANN’s interaction with governments” is currently not part of the draft.
Thank you for considering this.
Kind regards
Sabine Meyer
International Digital and Postal Policy, Internet Governance
Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy
Villemombler Strasse 76, 53123 Bonn
GERMANY
Phone: +49 228 99615-2948
Fax: + 49 228 99615-2964
E-Mail: sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de
Internet: http://www.bmwi.de
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bernard Turcotte Gesendet: Freitag, 13. November 2015 00:04 An: Accountability Cross Community Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call
All,
As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting.
The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist.
This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on.
We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments.
Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG
for the CCWG Co-chairs.
_______________________________________________ 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
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Nov 2015 18:08, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
A few quick comments, since that's all there's time for under this plan.
I was only able to review my prior comments against this draft; no time for a full read.
1. Page 11: Petition Process: Is it clear that any individual, regardless
of affiliation can begin a petition in any AC/SO for every power? Even removing that AC/SO's appointed director? For example, can Justin Bieber start a petition in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin? If that is what we agreed to, never mind. It just strikes me as odd, and I haven't seen it expressed this way before. (I think we used the passive voice before, which did not identify the "actor" or any limitation on their identity or affiliation.)
SO: Page 18 addresses your fears. Cheers!
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>
wrote:
Dear Sabine,
I think that this is version issue. The version of the document you are
referencing is the incorrect one.
Indeed, it was part of the transparency issues mentioned in Dublin and,
during the CCWG call #65 we specifically discussed the item (see the slides here : https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56144581/WP2%20Issues%202%2...) and acknowledged that there we had received several requests to address this issue in WS2.
Thank you for raising this consistency issue.
Best,
Mathieu
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Sabine.Meyer@bmwi.bund.de
Envoyé : vendredi 13 novembre 2015 15:01 À : turcotte.bernard@gmail.com Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call
Dear Bernard,
thank you for updating and re-sending the draft!
To my understanding, the list of WS2 items on p 29 does not yet reflect the current status of discussions if indeed the latest version is the following: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/AJed%2020151026%20...
In that case, “ICANN’s interaction with governments” is currently not part of the draft.
Thank you for considering this.
Kind regards
Sabine Meyer
International Digital and Postal Policy, Internet Governance
Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy
Villemombler Strasse 76, 53123 Bonn
GERMANY
Phone: +49 228 99615-2948
Fax: + 49 228 99615-2964
E-Mail: sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de
Internet: http://www.bmwi.de
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bernard Turcotte Gesendet: Freitag, 13. November 2015 00:04 An: Accountability Cross Community Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call
All,
As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting.
The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist.
This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on.
We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments.
Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG
for the CCWG Co-chairs.
_______________________________________________ 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 don't believe Page 18 addresses my concerns. It says: The petition can only be started in the SO or AC that nominated the Director. It does not limit who can start that petition. As such, Justin Bieber could start a petition (or Seun Ojedeji -- oops I see you are are member of NCSG (along with ALAC and the ASO) so you could start a petition almost anywhere regardless of restrictions) in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin (a GNSO-appointed Director). So, my concern stands..... If there's something I'm missing on page 18, please let me know. Greg On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Nov 2015 18:08, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
A few quick comments, since that's all there's time for under this
plan. I was only able to review my prior comments against this draft; no time for a full read.
1. Page 11: Petition Process: Is it clear that any individual,
regardless of affiliation can begin a petition in any AC/SO for every power? Even removing that AC/SO's appointed director? For example, can Justin Bieber start a petition in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin? If that is what we agreed to, never mind. It just strikes me as odd, and I haven't seen it expressed this way before. (I think we used the passive voice before, which did not identify the "actor" or any limitation on their identity or affiliation.)
SO: Page 18 addresses your fears.
Cheers!
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>
wrote:
Dear Sabine,
I think that this is version issue. The version of the document you are
referencing is the incorrect one.
Indeed, it was part of the transparency issues mentioned in Dublin and,
during the CCWG call #65 we specifically discussed the item (see the slides here : https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56144581/WP2%20Issues%202%2...) and acknowledged that there we had received several requests to address this issue in WS2.
Thank you for raising this consistency issue.
Best,
Mathieu
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Sabine.Meyer@bmwi.bund.de
Envoyé : vendredi 13 novembre 2015 15:01 À : turcotte.bernard@gmail.com Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call
Dear Bernard,
thank you for updating and re-sending the draft!
To my understanding, the list of WS2 items on p 29 does not yet reflect the current status of discussions if indeed the latest version is the following: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/AJed%2020151026%20...
In that case, “ICANN’s interaction with governments” is currently not part of the draft.
Thank you for considering this.
Kind regards
Sabine Meyer
International Digital and Postal Policy, Internet Governance
Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy
Villemombler Strasse 76, 53123 Bonn
GERMANY
Phone: +49 228 99615-2948
Fax: + 49 228 99615-2964
E-Mail: sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de
Internet: http://www.bmwi.de
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bernard Turcotte Gesendet: Freitag, 13. November 2015 00:04 An: Accountability Cross Community Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call
All,
As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting.
The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist.
This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on.
We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments.
Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG
for the CCWG Co-chairs.
_______________________________________________ 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
Since you have the understanding below then that is correct and there is noting wrong with that; The petition only becomes recognised as legitimate when the SO/AC owns it. I don't see what the issue is in that scenario, an individual (or group of people) raise a need, it goes through the particular SO/AC consideration processes and becomes a formal petition of the concerned SO/AC. Perhaps you want the role to be restricted to leaders of SO/AC so Greg as the president of IPC can be the only one within IPC to raise such petition. Sorry that won't be implementing the concept of MS and I thought you do value that. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Nov 2015 19:25, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't believe Page 18 addresses my concerns. It says:
The petition can only be started in the SO or AC that nominated the Director.
It does not limit who can start that petition. As such, Justin Bieber could start a petition (or Seun Ojedeji -- oops I see you are are member of NCSG (along with ALAC and the ASO) so you could start a petition almost anywhere regardless of restrictions) in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin (a GNSO-appointed Director). So, my concern stands.....
If there's something I'm missing on page 18, please let me know.
Greg
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Nov 2015 18:08, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
A few quick comments, since that's all there's time for under this
plan. I was only able to review my prior comments against this draft; no time for a full read.
1. Page 11: Petition Process: Is it clear that any individual,
regardless of affiliation can begin a petition in any AC/SO for every power? Even removing that AC/SO's appointed director? For example, can Justin Bieber start a petition in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin? If that is what we agreed to, never mind. It just strikes me as odd, and I haven't seen it expressed this way before. (I think we used the passive voice before, which did not identify the "actor" or any limitation on their identity or affiliation.)
SO: Page 18 addresses your fears.
Cheers!
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>
wrote:
Dear Sabine,
I think that this is version issue. The version of the document you
are referencing is the incorrect one.
Indeed, it was part of the transparency issues mentioned in Dublin
and, during the CCWG call #65 we specifically discussed the item (see the slides here : https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56144581/WP2%20Issues%202%2...) and acknowledged that there we had received several requests to address this issue in WS2.
Thank you for raising this consistency issue.
Best,
Mathieu
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Sabine.Meyer@bmwi.bund.de
Envoyé : vendredi 13 novembre 2015 15:01 À : turcotte.bernard@gmail.com Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call
Dear Bernard,
thank you for updating and re-sending the draft!
To my understanding, the list of WS2 items on p 29 does not yet reflect the current status of discussions if indeed the latest version is the following: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/AJed%2020151026%20...
In that case, “ICANN’s interaction with governments” is currently not part of the draft.
Thank you for considering this.
Kind regards
Sabine Meyer
International Digital and Postal Policy, Internet Governance
Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy
Villemombler Strasse 76, 53123 Bonn
GERMANY
Phone: +49 228 99615-2948
Fax: + 49 228 99615-2964
E-Mail: sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de
Internet: http://www.bmwi.de
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bernard Turcotte Gesendet: Freitag, 13. November 2015 00:04 An: Accountability Cross Community Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call
All,
As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting.
The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist.
This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on.
We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments.
Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG
for the CCWG Co-chairs.
_______________________________________________ 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
Perhaps you want the role to be restricted to leaders of SO/AC so Greg as the president of IPC can be the only one within IPC to raise such petition. Sorry that won't be implementing the concept of MS and I thought you do value that.
I did not in any way express or imply such an absurd thing, and I'm rather insulted that you would even raise the possibility. Perhaps you will find a way to join the few SO/ACs you haven't yet joined, so that you can raise a petition wherever you feel like it, even if the right is restricted. That seems like a much better plan for world domination, with much less work, than chairing a constituency. On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Since you have the understanding below then that is correct and there is noting wrong with that; The petition only becomes recognised as legitimate when the SO/AC owns it.
I don't see what the issue is in that scenario, an individual (or group of people) raise a need, it goes through the particular SO/AC consideration processes and becomes a formal petition of the concerned SO/AC.
Perhaps you want the role to be restricted to leaders of SO/AC so Greg as the president of IPC can be the only one within IPC to raise such petition. Sorry that won't be implementing the concept of MS and I thought you do value that.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Nov 2015 19:25, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't believe Page 18 addresses my concerns. It says:
The petition can only be started in the SO or AC that nominated the Director.
It does not limit who can start that petition. As such, Justin Bieber could start a petition (or Seun Ojedeji -- oops I see you are are member of NCSG (along with ALAC and the ASO) so you could start a petition almost anywhere regardless of restrictions) in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin (a GNSO-appointed Director). So, my concern stands.....
If there's something I'm missing on page 18, please let me know.
Greg
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Nov 2015 18:08, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
A few quick comments, since that's all there's time for under this
plan. I was only able to review my prior comments against this draft; no time for a full read.
1. Page 11: Petition Process: Is it clear that any individual,
regardless of affiliation can begin a petition in any AC/SO for every power? Even removing that AC/SO's appointed director? For example, can Justin Bieber start a petition in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin? If that is what we agreed to, never mind. It just strikes me as odd, and I haven't seen it expressed this way before. (I think we used the passive voice before, which did not identify the "actor" or any limitation on their identity or affiliation.)
SO: Page 18 addresses your fears.
Cheers!
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>
wrote:
Dear Sabine,
I think that this is version issue. The version of the document you
are referencing is the incorrect one.
Indeed, it was part of the transparency issues mentioned in Dublin
and, during the CCWG call #65 we specifically discussed the item (see the slides here : https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56144581/WP2%20Issues%202%2...) and acknowledged that there we had received several requests to address this issue in WS2.
Thank you for raising this consistency issue.
Best,
Mathieu
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Sabine.Meyer@bmwi.bund.de
Envoyé : vendredi 13 novembre 2015 15:01 À : turcotte.bernard@gmail.com Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call
Dear Bernard,
thank you for updating and re-sending the draft!
To my understanding, the list of WS2 items on p 29 does not yet reflect the current status of discussions if indeed the latest version is the following: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/AJed%2020151026%20...
In that case, “ICANN’s interaction with governments” is currently not part of the draft.
Thank you for considering this.
Kind regards
Sabine Meyer
International Digital and Postal Policy, Internet Governance
Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy
Villemombler Strasse 76, 53123 Bonn
GERMANY
Phone: +49 228 99615-2948
Fax: + 49 228 99615-2964
E-Mail: sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de
Internet: http://www.bmwi.de
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bernard Turcotte Gesendet: Freitag, 13. November 2015 00:04 An: Accountability Cross Community Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call
All,
As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting.
The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist.
This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on.
We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments.
Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG
for the CCWG Co-chairs.
_______________________________________________ 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
Well you started the scenario painting in the first place so I had the share of your insult as well. If the same person raise petition through multiple SO/AC and survives the internal processes of those SO/AC to remove their respective individual members then such person deserves the next Ethos award. If you think the SO/AC community could be so drunk/distracted by approving/supporting such petition then maybe it's another reason why allowing appointing SO/AC remove her board member is flawed. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Nov 2015 19:53, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps you want the role to be restricted to leaders of SO/AC so Greg as
the president of IPC can be the only one within IPC to raise such petition. Sorry that won't be implementing the concept of MS and I thought you do value that.
I did not in any way express or imply such an absurd thing, and I'm rather insulted that you would even raise the possibility. Perhaps you will find a way to join the few SO/ACs you haven't yet joined, so that you can raise a petition wherever you feel like it, even if the right is restricted.
That seems like a much better plan for world domination, with much less work, than chairing a constituency.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Since you have the understanding below then that is correct and there is noting wrong with that; The petition only becomes recognised as legitimate when the SO/AC owns it.
I don't see what the issue is in that scenario, an individual (or group of people) raise a need, it goes through the particular SO/AC consideration processes and becomes a formal petition of the concerned SO/AC.
Perhaps you want the role to be restricted to leaders of SO/AC so Greg as the president of IPC can be the only one within IPC to raise such petition. Sorry that won't be implementing the concept of MS and I thought you do value that.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Nov 2015 19:25, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't believe Page 18 addresses my concerns. It says:
The petition can only be started in the SO or AC that nominated the Director.
It does not limit who can start that petition. As such, Justin Bieber could start a petition (or Seun Ojedeji -- oops I see you are are member of NCSG (along with ALAC and the ASO) so you could start a petition almost anywhere regardless of restrictions) in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin (a GNSO-appointed Director). So, my concern stands.....
If there's something I'm missing on page 18, please let me know.
Greg
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Nov 2015 18:08, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
A few quick comments, since that's all there's time for under this
plan. I was only able to review my prior comments against this draft; no time for a full read.
1. Page 11: Petition Process: Is it clear that any individual,
regardless of affiliation can begin a petition in any AC/SO for every power? Even removing that AC/SO's appointed director? For example, can Justin Bieber start a petition in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin? If that is what we agreed to, never mind. It just strikes me as odd, and I haven't seen it expressed this way before. (I think we used the passive voice before, which did not identify the "actor" or any limitation on their identity or affiliation.)
SO: Page 18 addresses your fears.
Cheers!
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Mathieu Weill <
mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Sabine,
I think that this is version issue. The version of the document you
are referencing is the incorrect one.
Indeed, it was part of the transparency issues mentioned in Dublin
and, during the CCWG call #65 we specifically discussed the item (see the slides here : https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56144581/WP2%20Issues%202%2...) and acknowledged that there we had received several requests to address this issue in WS2.
Thank you for raising this consistency issue.
Best,
Mathieu
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Sabine.Meyer@bmwi.bund.de
Envoyé : vendredi 13 novembre 2015 15:01 À : turcotte.bernard@gmail.com Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call
Dear Bernard,
thank you for updating and re-sending the draft!
To my understanding, the list of WS2 items on p 29 does not yet reflect the current status of discussions if indeed the latest version is the following: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/AJed%2020151026%20...
In that case, “ICANN’s interaction with governments” is currently not part of the draft.
Thank you for considering this.
Kind regards
Sabine Meyer
International Digital and Postal Policy, Internet Governance
Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy
Villemombler Strasse 76, 53123 Bonn
GERMANY
Phone: +49 228 99615-2948
Fax: + 49 228 99615-2964
E-Mail: sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de
Internet: http://www.bmwi.de
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bernard Turcotte Gesendet: Freitag, 13. November 2015 00:04 An: Accountability Cross Community Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call
All,
As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting.
The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist.
This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on.
We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments.
Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG
for the CCWG Co-chairs.
_______________________________________________ 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 didn't realize you were such a big Justin Bieber fan. My apologies, then. On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Well you started the scenario painting in the first place so I had the share of your insult as well. If the same person raise petition through multiple SO/AC and survives the internal processes of those SO/AC to remove their respective individual members then such person deserves the next Ethos award.
If you think the SO/AC community could be so drunk/distracted by approving/supporting such petition then maybe it's another reason why allowing appointing SO/AC remove her board member is flawed.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Nov 2015 19:53, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps you want the role to be restricted to leaders of SO/AC so Greg as
the president of IPC can be the only one within IPC to raise such petition. Sorry that won't be implementing the concept of MS and I thought you do value that.
I did not in any way express or imply such an absurd thing, and I'm rather insulted that you would even raise the possibility. Perhaps you will find a way to join the few SO/ACs you haven't yet joined, so that you can raise a petition wherever you feel like it, even if the right is restricted.
That seems like a much better plan for world domination, with much less work, than chairing a constituency.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Since you have the understanding below then that is correct and there is noting wrong with that; The petition only becomes recognised as legitimate when the SO/AC owns it.
I don't see what the issue is in that scenario, an individual (or group of people) raise a need, it goes through the particular SO/AC consideration processes and becomes a formal petition of the concerned SO/AC.
Perhaps you want the role to be restricted to leaders of SO/AC so Greg as the president of IPC can be the only one within IPC to raise such petition. Sorry that won't be implementing the concept of MS and I thought you do value that.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Nov 2015 19:25, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't believe Page 18 addresses my concerns. It says:
The petition can only be started in the SO or AC that nominated the Director.
It does not limit who can start that petition. As such, Justin Bieber could start a petition (or Seun Ojedeji -- oops I see you are are member of NCSG (along with ALAC and the ASO) so you could start a petition almost anywhere regardless of restrictions) in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin (a GNSO-appointed Director). So, my concern stands.....
If there's something I'm missing on page 18, please let me know.
Greg
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Nov 2015 18:08, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
A few quick comments, since that's all there's time for under this
plan. I was only able to review my prior comments against this draft; no time for a full read.
1. Page 11: Petition Process: Is it clear that any individual,
regardless of affiliation can begin a petition in any AC/SO for every power? Even removing that AC/SO's appointed director? For example, can Justin Bieber start a petition in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin? If that is what we agreed to, never mind. It just strikes me as odd, and I haven't seen it expressed this way before. (I think we used the passive voice before, which did not identify the "actor" or any limitation on their identity or affiliation.)
SO: Page 18 addresses your fears.
Cheers!
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Mathieu Weill <
mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
> > Dear Sabine, > > > > I think that this is version issue. The version of the document you are referencing is the incorrect one. > > > > Indeed, it was part of the transparency issues mentioned in Dublin and, during the CCWG call #65 we specifically discussed the item (see the slides here : https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56144581/WP2%20Issues%202%2...) and acknowledged that there we had received several requests to address this issue in WS2. > > > > Thank you for raising this consistency issue. > > > > Best, > > Mathieu > > > > De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Sabine.Meyer@bmwi.bund.de > Envoyé : vendredi 13 novembre 2015 15:01 > À : turcotte.bernard@gmail.com > Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org > Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call > > > > Dear Bernard, > > > > thank you for updating and re-sending the draft! > > > > To my understanding, the list of WS2 items on p 29 does not yet reflect the current status of discussions if indeed the latest version is the following: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/AJed%2020151026%20... > > > > In that case, “ICANN’s interaction with governments” is currently not part of the draft. > > Thank you for considering this. > > > > Kind regards > > > > Sabine Meyer > > International Digital and Postal Policy, Internet Governance > > Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy > > Villemombler Strasse 76, 53123 Bonn > > GERMANY > > Phone: +49 228 99615-2948 > > Fax: + 49 228 99615-2964 > > E-Mail: sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de > > Internet: http://www.bmwi.de > > > > Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bernard Turcotte > Gesendet: Freitag, 13. November 2015 00:04 > An: Accountability Cross Community > Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call > > > > All, > > > > As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting. > > > > The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist. > > > > This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on. > > > > We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments. > > > > Bernard Turcotte > > ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG > > > > for the CCWG Co-chairs. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
Good evening: I have recently read two apparently related documents: - summary of the work and Recommendations of the CCWG … - A formal update on the CCWG … during and after ICANN 54 … Could someone please explain which text is authoritative. Do I need to comment on mistakes in the 'summary' which are not in the 'formal update' - ? More generally, may I note that 30+ pages is already quite a stretch for most people. If the forthcoming November 30 document promises to be even longer, then we have a problem. Regards CW PS: Thankyou - someone - for drawing our attention to the existence of one Justin Bieber, of whom I was not previously aware. I trust that he has been advised as to his critical röle in the matter of the governance of ICANN. ;-) On 13 Nov 2015, at 20:36, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't realize you were such a big Justin Bieber fan. My apologies, then.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: Well you started the scenario painting in the first place so I had the share of your insult as well. If the same person raise petition through multiple SO/AC and survives the internal processes of those SO/AC to remove their respective individual members then such person deserves the next Ethos award.
If you think the SO/AC community could be so drunk/distracted by approving/supporting such petition then maybe it's another reason why allowing appointing SO/AC remove her board member is flawed.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 13 Nov 2015 19:53, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Perhaps you want the role to be restricted to leaders of SO/AC so Greg as the president of IPC can be the only one within IPC to raise such petition. Sorry that won't be implementing the concept of MS and I thought you do value that.
I did not in any way express or imply such an absurd thing, and I'm rather insulted that you would even raise the possibility. Perhaps you will find a way to join the few SO/ACs you haven't yet joined, so that you can raise a petition wherever you feel like it, even if the right is restricted. That seems like a much better plan for world domination, with much less work, than chairing a constituency.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: Since you have the understanding below then that is correct and there is noting wrong with that; The petition only becomes recognised as legitimate when the SO/AC owns it.
I don't see what the issue is in that scenario, an individual (or group of people) raise a need, it goes through the particular SO/AC consideration processes and becomes a formal petition of the concerned SO/AC.
Perhaps you want the role to be restricted to leaders of SO/AC so Greg as the president of IPC can be the only one within IPC to raise such petition. Sorry that won't be implementing the concept of MS and I thought you do value that.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 13 Nov 2015 19:25, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: I don't believe Page 18 addresses my concerns. It says:
The petition can only be started in the SO or AC that nominated the Director.
It does not limit who can start that petition. As such, Justin Bieber could start a petition (or Seun Ojedeji -- oops I see you are are member of NCSG (along with ALAC and the ASO) so you could start a petition almost anywhere regardless of restrictions) in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin (a GNSO-appointed Director). So, my concern stands.....
If there's something I'm missing on page 18, please let me know.
Greg
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Nov 2015 18:08, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
A few quick comments, since that's all there's time for under this plan. I was only able to review my prior comments against this draft; no time for a full read.
1. Page 11: Petition Process: Is it clear that any individual, regardless of affiliation can begin a petition in any AC/SO for every power? Even removing that AC/SO's appointed director? For example, can Justin Bieber start a petition in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin? If that is what we agreed to, never mind. It just strikes me as odd, and I haven't seen it expressed this way before. (I think we used the passive voice before, which did not identify the "actor" or any limitation on their identity or affiliation.)
SO: Page 18 addresses your fears.
Cheers!
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Sabine,
I think that this is version issue. The version of the document you are referencing is the incorrect one.
Indeed, it was part of the transparency issues mentioned in Dublin and, during the CCWG call #65 we specifically discussed the item (see the slides here : https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56144581/WP2%20Issues%202%2...) and acknowledged that there we had received several requests to address this issue in WS2.
Thank you for raising this consistency issue.
Best,
Mathieu
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Sabine.Meyer@bmwi.bund.de Envoyé : vendredi 13 novembre 2015 15:01 À : turcotte.bernard@gmail.com Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call
Dear Bernard,
thank you for updating and re-sending the draft!
To my understanding, the list of WS2 items on p 29 does not yet reflect the current status of discussions if indeed the latest version is the following: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/AJed%2020151026%20...
In that case, “ICANN’s interaction with governments” is currently not part of the draft.
Thank you for considering this.
Kind regards
Sabine Meyer
International Digital and Postal Policy, Internet Governance
Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy
Villemombler Strasse 76, 53123 Bonn
GERMANY
Phone: +49 228 99615-2948
Fax: + 49 228 99615-2964
E-Mail: sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de
Internet: http://www.bmwi.de
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bernard Turcotte Gesendet: Freitag, 13. November 2015 00:04 An: Accountability Cross Community Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call
All,
As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting.
The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist.
This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on.
We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments.
Bernard Turcotte
ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG
for the CCWG Co-chairs.
_______________________________________________ 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
But size isn't everything. Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Nov 2015, at 19:36, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't realize you were such a big Justin Bieber fan. My apologies, then.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: Well you started the scenario painting in the first place so I had the share of your insult as well. If the same person raise petition through multiple SO/AC and survives the internal processes of those SO/AC to remove their respective individual members then such person deserves the next Ethos award.
If you think the SO/AC community could be so drunk/distracted by approving/supporting such petition then maybe it's another reason why allowing appointing SO/AC remove her board member is flawed.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 13 Nov 2015 19:53, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps you want the role to be restricted to leaders of SO/AC so Greg as the president of IPC can be the only one within IPC to raise such petition. Sorry that won't be implementing the concept of MS and I thought you do value that.
I did not in any way express or imply such an absurd thing, and I'm rather insulted that you would even raise the possibility. Perhaps you will find a way to join the few SO/ACs you haven't yet joined, so that you can raise a petition wherever you feel like it, even if the right is restricted. That seems like a much better plan for world domination, with much less work, than chairing a constituency.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: Since you have the understanding below then that is correct and there is noting wrong with that; The petition only becomes recognised as legitimate when the SO/AC owns it.
I don't see what the issue is in that scenario, an individual (or group of people) raise a need, it goes through the particular SO/AC consideration processes and becomes a formal petition of the concerned SO/AC.
Perhaps you want the role to be restricted to leaders of SO/AC so Greg as the president of IPC can be the only one within IPC to raise such petition. Sorry that won't be implementing the concept of MS and I thought you do value that.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 13 Nov 2015 19:25, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: I don't believe Page 18 addresses my concerns. It says:
The petition can only be started in the SO or AC that nominated the Director.
It does not limit who can start that petition. As such, Justin Bieber could start a petition (or Seun Ojedeji -- oops I see you are are member of NCSG (along with ALAC and the ASO) so you could start a petition almost anywhere regardless of restrictions) in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin (a GNSO-appointed Director). So, my concern stands.....
If there's something I'm missing on page 18, please let me know.
Greg
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Nov 2015 18:08, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: > > A few quick comments, since that's all there's time for under this plan. I was only able to review my prior comments against this draft; no time for a full read. > > 1. Page 11: Petition Process: Is it clear that any individual, regardless of affiliation can begin a petition in any AC/SO for every power? Even removing that AC/SO's appointed director? For example, can Justin Bieber start a petition in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin? If that is what we agreed to, never mind. It just strikes me as odd, and I haven't seen it expressed this way before. (I think we used the passive voice before, which did not identify the "actor" or any limitation on their identity or affiliation.) > SO: Page 18 addresses your fears.
Cheers!
> > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote: >> >> Dear Sabine, >> >> >> >> I think that this is version issue. The version of the document you are referencing is the incorrect one. >> >> >> >> Indeed, it was part of the transparency issues mentioned in Dublin and, during the CCWG call #65 we specifically discussed the item (see the slides here : https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56144581/WP2%20Issues%202%2...) and acknowledged that there we had received several requests to address this issue in WS2. >> >> >> >> Thank you for raising this consistency issue. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Mathieu >> >> >> >> De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Sabine.Meyer@bmwi.bund.de >> Envoyé : vendredi 13 novembre 2015 15:01 >> À : turcotte.bernard@gmail.com >> Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org >> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call >> >> >> >> Dear Bernard, >> >> >> >> thank you for updating and re-sending the draft! >> >> >> >> To my understanding, the list of WS2 items on p 29 does not yet reflect the current status of discussions if indeed the latest version is the following: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/AJed%2020151026%20... >> >> >> >> In that case, “ICANN’s interaction with governments” is currently not part of the draft. >> >> Thank you for considering this. >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> >> >> Sabine Meyer >> >> International Digital and Postal Policy, Internet Governance >> >> Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy >> >> Villemombler Strasse 76, 53123 Bonn >> >> GERMANY >> >> Phone: +49 228 99615-2948 >> >> Fax: + 49 228 99615-2964 >> >> E-Mail: sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de >> >> Internet: http://www.bmwi.de >> >> >> >> Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bernard Turcotte >> Gesendet: Freitag, 13. November 2015 00:04 >> An: Accountability Cross Community >> Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call >> >> >> >> All, >> >> >> >> As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting. >> >> >> >> The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist. >> >> >> >> This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on. >> >> >> >> We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments. >> >> >> >> Bernard Turcotte >> >> ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG >> >> >> >> for the CCWG Co-chairs. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
participants (13)
-
Bernard Turcotte -
Chris Disspain -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Greg Shatan -
Malcolm Hutty -
Mathieu Weill -
Mueller, Milton L -
Nigel Roberts -
Robin Gross -
Sabine.Meyer＠bmwi.bund.de -
Schaefer, Brett -
Seun Ojedeji