Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1)
[sorry for the double post, technical issue] Dear Byron, as tmember appointed by the (chartering) ccNSO to the CCWG Accountability I have followed the Charter, in particular in raising my concerns of my points consistently being ignored and rejected by the Co-Chairs of this CCWG, one of whom is Mathieu Weill, the posting of whom, herein-under, I wish to address, "through the chair". Please assure that staff forwards this to all Council Members who do not have access to the above lists. These "current proposals" have been arrived at in violation of the Charter, without the necessary Consensus Call for all positions, and in violation of the Charter by refusing the opportunity to attach minority views. They also have been rushed over the objection of myself in which I have been joined in various degrees, shape or form by appointed members of every constituency chartering, even several GAC members expressing themselves in this regard. This was done in order to get "something" passed prior to a non existing deadline instead of doing this carefully, thoroughly and inclusively. As usual the gNSO members and in particular un-appointed participants representing large interests were/are the driving force behind this rush-job. The document is so convoluted that an expensive graphics company was hired for several months to generate these professional graphics in order to just be able to understand the document. Even Mathieu doesn't understand it, because he not only refers to it as a "report" which under the Charter REQUIRES a Consensus Call and attachment of minority views, if any, and he alleges that it has any relevance to ccTLDs, which is has not. The community he refers to is ill defined, and in any case the ccNSO has no mandate whatsoever to act on decisions, acts or omissions affecting individual ccTLDs. According to the Charter the CCWG must address ALL accountability issues with the exception of administrative and operational IANA issues, which were to have been addressed by CWG Stewardship, where they were not being addressed, of course. This was used to refuse and/or ignore any request that had anything to do with the root zone and/or the IANA Function, in particular the fundamental issues, which remain unresolved. I will post something like this into the Comment Box for the record, but I strongly urge all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish. Finally, I am personally offended by him thanking the ccTLD members and characterizing their participation, in particular since hardly any input by ccTLD members/participants had any effect on ccTLD Managers' positions, and because he does not mean it. For me it is not a pleasure to work in this CCWG and in particular not an honor to work with him and any other of the other Co-Chairs. el On 2015-05-05 07:53, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Thank you Gabi for sharing this announcement.
In addition to the public comment announcement (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-201...) the CCWG-Accountability produced some graphics describing the current proposals (PDF, https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52897394/XPL_CCWG_Illustrat...) , which you might find helpful, although of course nothing replaces reading the actual report.
While this report is not focused on IANA, it is very relevant to ccTLDs : it addresses the accountability enhancements requested by the CWG Iana stewardship transition latest proposal, proposes additional powers for the community, including the ccNSO, and strongly reinforces Icannn's appeal mechanisms.
For more details, the CCWG-Accountability will hold two identical webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on:
11 May from 11:00 – 12:30 UTC 11 May from 19:00 – 20:30 UTC
Details can be found here : https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en
I seize this opportunity to thank all ccTLD members and participants to this group. They have done a tremendous job, demonstrating the value of ccTLD inputs to the overall community. As co-chair, it is a great pleasure and an honour to work with such a team.
We are now more than ever in listening mode and look forward to your questions and feedbacks.
Best regards, Mathieu [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Dear All, I believe this would be the best time to evaluate and postulate a change or request for time to make any correction or addition. Its better to make the needed input rather than call the work a rubbish. If it matters to all, its right to make effect. -Akinbo. On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
[sorry for the double post, technical issue]
Dear Byron,
as tmember appointed by the (chartering) ccNSO to the CCWG Accountability I have followed the Charter, in particular in raising my concerns of my points consistently being ignored and rejected by the Co-Chairs of this CCWG, one of whom is Mathieu Weill, the posting of whom, herein-under, I wish to address, "through the chair".
Please assure that staff forwards this to all Council Members who do not have access to the above lists.
These "current proposals" have been arrived at in violation of the Charter, without the necessary Consensus Call for all positions, and in violation of the Charter by refusing the opportunity to attach minority views.
They also have been rushed over the objection of myself in which I have been joined in various degrees, shape or form by appointed members of every constituency chartering, even several GAC members expressing themselves in this regard.
This was done in order to get "something" passed prior to a non existing deadline instead of doing this carefully, thoroughly and inclusively.
As usual the gNSO members and in particular un-appointed participants representing large interests were/are the driving force behind this rush-job.
The document is so convoluted that an expensive graphics company was hired for several months to generate these professional graphics in order to just be able to understand the document.
Even Mathieu doesn't understand it, because he not only refers to it as a "report" which under the Charter REQUIRES a Consensus Call and attachment of minority views, if any, and he alleges that it has any relevance to ccTLDs, which is has not.
The community he refers to is ill defined, and in any case the ccNSO has no mandate whatsoever to act on decisions, acts or omissions affecting individual ccTLDs.
According to the Charter the CCWG must address ALL accountability issues with the exception of administrative and operational IANA issues, which were to have been addressed by CWG Stewardship, where they were not being addressed, of course.
This was used to refuse and/or ignore any request that had anything to do with the root zone and/or the IANA Function, in particular the fundamental issues, which remain unresolved.
I will post something like this into the Comment Box for the record, but I strongly urge all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish.
Finally, I am personally offended by him thanking the ccTLD members and characterizing their participation, in particular since hardly any input by ccTLD members/participants had any effect on ccTLD Managers' positions, and because he does not mean it.
For me it is not a pleasure to work in this CCWG and in particular not an honor to work with him and any other of the other Co-Chairs.
el
On 2015-05-05 07:53, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Thank you Gabi for sharing this announcement.
In addition to the public comment announcement ( https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-201... ) the CCWG-Accountability produced some graphics describing the current proposals (PDF,
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52897394/XPL_CCWG_Illustrat... )
, which you might find helpful, although of course nothing replaces reading the actual report.
While this report is not focused on IANA, it is very relevant to ccTLDs : it addresses the accountability enhancements requested by the CWG Iana stewardship transition latest proposal, proposes additional powers for the community, including the ccNSO, and strongly reinforces Icannn's appeal mechanisms.
For more details, the CCWG-Accountability will hold two identical webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on:
11 May from 11:00 – 12:30 UTC 11 May from 19:00 – 20:30 UTC
Details can be found here : https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en
I seize this opportunity to thank all ccTLD members and participants to this group. They have done a tremendous job, demonstrating the value of ccTLD inputs to the overall community. As co-chair, it is a great pleasure and an honour to work with such a team.
We are now more than ever in listening mode and look forward to your questions and feedbacks.
Best regards, Mathieu [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- *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
Dear Byron, Dear Colleagues, To set the record straight, Dr Lisse's statements about the violation of the CCWG Accountability Charter and the dynamics of the group are a misrepresentation of facts. Speaking of facts, we are more than happy to provide details in response to the accusations as well as explanations we gave to Dr Lisse on the public mailing list, to support our statement. We would also note for the benefit of readers of these lists that Dr Lisse has filed countless objections against almost everything the CCWG did since it started. Participants and members of the CCWG have expressed to the co-chairs that they consider Dr Lisse's behaviour as an attempt to discredit the work of fellow volunteers and derail the work of the group. We will not burden everyone on the lists that were cc-ed with details, especially when we have the opportunity to discuss and engage on substance. But we wanted to set this record straight, and express our deep sadness about the use of such a process within the ccTLD community. That being said, we encourage other ccTLD members and participants in the CCWG to express their views related to the substance of the proposals. Best, Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill, co-chairs Le 05/05/2015 11:36, Dr Eberhard Lisse a écrit :
[sorry for the double post, technical issue] Dear Byron,
as tmember appointed by the (chartering) ccNSO to the CCWG Accountability I have followed the Charter, in particular in raising my concerns of my points consistently being ignored and rejected by the Co-Chairs of this CCWG, one of whom is Mathieu Weill, the posting of whom, herein-under, I wish to address, "through the chair".
Please assure that staff forwards this to all Council Members who do not have access to the above lists.
These "current proposals" have been arrived at in violation of the Charter, without the necessary Consensus Call for all positions, and in violation of the Charter by refusing the opportunity to attach minority views.
They also have been rushed over the objection of myself in which I have been joined in various degrees, shape or form by appointed members of every constituency chartering, even several GAC members expressing themselves in this regard.
This was done in order to get "something" passed prior to a non existing deadline instead of doing this carefully, thoroughly and inclusively.
As usual the gNSO members and in particular un-appointed participants representing large interests were/are the driving force behind this rush-job.
The document is so convoluted that an expensive graphics company was hired for several months to generate these professional graphics in order to just be able to understand the document.
Even Mathieu doesn't understand it, because he not only refers to it as a "report" which under the Charter REQUIRES a Consensus Call and attachment of minority views, if any, and he alleges that it has any relevance to ccTLDs, which is has not.
The community he refers to is ill defined, and in any case the ccNSO has no mandate whatsoever to act on decisions, acts or omissions affecting individual ccTLDs.
According to the Charter the CCWG must address ALL accountability issues with the exception of administrative and operational IANA issues, which were to have been addressed by CWG Stewardship, where they were not being addressed, of course.
This was used to refuse and/or ignore any request that had anything to do with the root zone and/or the IANA Function, in particular the fundamental issues, which remain unresolved.
I will post something like this into the Comment Box for the record, but I strongly urge all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish.
Finally, I am personally offended by him thanking the ccTLD members and characterizing their participation, in particular since hardly any input by ccTLD members/participants had any effect on ccTLD Managers' positions, and because he does not mean it.
For me it is not a pleasure to work in this CCWG and in particular not an honor to work with him and any other of the other Co-Chairs.
el
On 2015-05-05 07:53, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Thank you Gabi for sharing this announcement.
In addition to the public comment announcement (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-201...) the CCWG-Accountability produced some graphics describing the current proposals (PDF, https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52897394/XPL_CCWG_Illustrat...) , which you might find helpful, although of course nothing replaces reading the actual report.
While this report is not focused on IANA, it is very relevant to ccTLDs : it addresses the accountability enhancements requested by the CWG Iana stewardship transition latest proposal, proposes additional powers for the community, including the ccNSO, and strongly reinforces Icannn's appeal mechanisms.
For more details, the CCWG-Accountability will hold two identical webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on:
11 May from 11:00 – 12:30 UTC 11 May from 19:00 – 20:30 UTC
Details can be found here : https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en
I seize this opportunity to thank all ccTLD members and participants to this group. They have done a tremendous job, demonstrating the value of ccTLD inputs to the overall community. As co-chair, it is a great pleasure and an honour to work with such a team.
We are now more than ever in listening mode and look forward to your questions and feedbacks.
Best regards, Mathieu [...]
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
Dear Byron, Dear Colleagues, it is unfortunate that Mr Weill now becomes emotional. The Charter clearly states: Section V: Rules of Engagement Decision-Making Methodologies: In developing its Proposal(s), work plan and any other reports, the CCWG-Accountability shall seek to act by consensus. Consensus calls should always make best efforts to involve all members (the CCWG-Accountability or sub-working group). The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree In the absence of Full Consensus, the Chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report. I do not see any room for ambiguity here ("any other reports", "involve all members", "designating each position" minority viewpoints "shall be included in the report") I most certainly not have filed countless objections (the Co-Chairs were probably too busy ignoring them rather than them) and most certainly not "since it started". I have diligently participated and most constructively which was stated by all three Co-Chairs (when it suited them, obviously) during and after the Frankfurt and Istanbul meetings. I have however since Singapore come to believe that we are doing this wrong and have voiced this in Singapore repeatedly. My objections mainly concern two issues, namely the refusal to deal with the fundamental issues of IANA/ICANN accountability. And the process ie the rushing to an arbitrary deadline without careful consideration. As a member of the FoI Wg I have participated in what must be considered the yardstick on thorough and considered review and debate. It is telling that instead of dealing with the substance of my concerns, innuendo and allegation are being used. As if it was ok to do whatever one wants to but it was not ok to talk about it. Sadness indeed. I strongly urge ccTLD Managers to soundly reject this rubbish "report" which tinkers on the surface, with the effect of tossing ccTLD Managers a few bones on issues that don't concern them really, and to demand that the fundamental questions that affect us ccTLD Managers are asked and answered. greetings, el On 2015-05-06 06:44, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Byron, Dear Colleagues,
To set the record straight, Dr Lisse's statements about the violation of the CCWG Accountability Charter and the dynamics of the group are a misrepresentation of facts. Speaking of facts, we are more than happy to provide details in response to the accusations as well as explanations we gave to Dr Lisse on the public mailing list, to support our statement.
We would also note for the benefit of readers of these lists that Dr Lisse has filed countless objections against almost everything the CCWG did since it started. Participants and members of the CCWG have expressed to the co-chairs that they consider Dr Lisse's behaviour as an attempt to discredit the work of fellow volunteers and derail the work of the group.
We will not burden everyone on the lists that were cc-ed with details, especially when we have the opportunity to discuss and engage on substance. But we wanted to set this record straight, and express our deep sadness about the use of such a process within the ccTLD community.
That being said, we encourage other ccTLD members and participants in the CCWG to express their views related to the substance of the proposals.
Best, Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill, co-chairs [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Hi all, hi Ebehard, Replying just to ccNSO members and to the CCWG-Accountability: On 6 May 2015 at 20:24, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
<snip>
I have diligently participated and most constructively which was stated by all three Co-Chairs (when it suited them, obviously) during and after the Frankfurt and Istanbul meetings.
I would like to record my observation that this is true except the "after the Istanbul" part.
I have however since Singapore come to believe that we are doing this wrong and have voiced this in Singapore repeatedly.
My objections mainly concern two issues, namely the refusal to deal with the fundamental issues of IANA/ICANN accountability.
For the benefit of those reading this who haven't been following your arguments, is it fair to argue that you've said that there is a foundational matter that is unresolved - what right the USG has over the root at all? If that's right confirmation would be helpful, if it isn't a correction would also be helpful. As a diligent participant in the CCWG for all of this year, I have to say that there is no clarity on what your "fundamental issues" are. I'd go further. If you had written those down and suggested that they be attached to the comment report, I don't see how anyone could have objected. Instead of doing that, you did object regularly and quite directly to the process - without taking the step of exercising the opportunity you were calling for. So, the report does note it is not a consensus product - and in the absence of your concrete minority views, they were not able to be attached. I am obviously not a co-chair, but I would have supported attaching your views had you produced them. I will maintain that position should you do so in the next report, for the record.
And the process ie the rushing to an arbitrary deadline without careful consideration.
I do not agree there is a lack of care in the consideration. Nor do I agree that there are no external factors guiding the work we need to do and when we need to do it by. Our links with the CWG's names stewardship proposal are on the record, and it is not a luxury we have to take years to do this work. I hope there is not a widespread view that the IANA stewardship transition should be delayed endlessly so that we can adopt a very leisurely pace on improving ICANN's accountability.
As a member of the FoI Wg I have participated in what must be considered the yardstick on thorough and considered review and debate.
Indeed. I haven't heard anyone criticise the quality of that work. Yet it seems to me that the time taken to do it, and for any policy required arising from it to be put into place, is part of the problem we find ourselves in. <snip>
I strongly urge ccTLD Managers to soundly reject this rubbish "report" which tinkers on the surface, with the effect of tossing ccTLD Managers a few bones on issues that don't concern them really, and to demand that the fundamental questions that affect us ccTLD Managers are asked and answered.
I strongly urge you, Eberhard, to clearly and succinctly set out the following matters: - what you think the fundamental questions are - what you think is irrelevant in the current set of proposals - why you think the fundamental questions you mention have to be solved by the CCWG, as opposed to the ccNSO itself or the CWG Based on the wide consensus in the CCWG, including among other ccTLD managers, I think you might find yourself out on a limb and representing the views of nobody other than yourself. I would welcome knowing whether that is the case, or whether your views are shared by the majority. Unfortunately, in the absence of you setting out your arguments, neither of us will ever know... bests Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *
Jordan, I have put the list in you took out, because it concerns the non ccNSO members as much (or perhaps even more) as I also have pointed out (a few times). With all due respect, you may not have observed all my interactions in person. Secondly the argument that my minority views were not published because I did not articulate them is absolute nonsense. I was TOLD it would not be done as there was no need for it under the Charter. Probably that email or meeting note got lost in the deluge in your in tray. I have set out my arguments a few number of times, they being summarily ignored, I can set them out again. Until I am blue in the face. Never mind that from it seems your below you are fully aware of them I totally disagree that a thorough, well reasoned result of a Working Group can be responsible for this mess. The Co-Chairs arbitrarily decided the time-line, over my objections, in which I was joined in different shapes forms of ways by at least one appointed member of each chartering group. There is no need for rushing things and rushing things is not conducive to good results, or even participatory. el On 2015-05-06 10:09, Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all, hi Ebehard,
Replying just to ccNSO members and to the CCWG-Accountability:
On 6 May 2015 at 20:24, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:
<snip>
I have diligently participated and most constructively which was stated by all three Co-Chairs (when it suited them, obviously) during and after the Frankfurt and Istanbul meetings.
I would like to record my observation that this is true except the "after the Istanbul" part.
I have however since Singapore come to believe that we are doing this wrong and have voiced this in Singapore repeatedly.
My objections mainly concern two issues, namely the refusal to deal with the fundamental issues of IANA/ICANN accountability.
For the benefit of those reading this who haven't been following your arguments, is it fair to argue that you've said that there is a foundational matter that is unresolved - what right the USG has over the root at all?
If that's right confirmation would be helpful, if it isn't a correction would also be helpful.
As a diligent participant in the CCWG for all of this year, I have to say that there is no clarity on what your "fundamental issues" are.
I'd go further. If you had written those down and suggested that they be attached to the comment report, I don't see how anyone could have objected.
Instead of doing that, you did object regularly and quite directly to the process - without taking the step of exercising the opportunity you were calling for.
So, the report does note it is not a consensus product - and in the absence of your concrete minority views, they were not able to be attached.
I am obviously not a co-chair, but I would have supported attaching your views had you produced them. I will maintain that position should you do so in the next report, for the record.
And the process ie the rushing to an arbitrary deadline without careful consideration.
I do not agree there is a lack of care in the consideration. Nor do I agree that there are no external factors guiding the work we need to do and when we need to do it by. Our links with the CWG's names stewardship proposal are on the record, and it is not a luxury we have to take years to do this work.
I hope there is not a widespread view that the IANA stewardship transition should be delayed endlessly so that we can adopt a very leisurely pace on improving ICANN's accountability.
As a member of the FoI Wg I have participated in what must be considered the yardstick on thorough and considered review and debate.
Indeed. I haven't heard anyone criticise the quality of that work. Yet it seems to me that the time taken to do it, and for any policy required arising from it to be put into place, is part of the problem we find ourselves in.
<snip>
I strongly urge ccTLD Managers to soundly reject this rubbish "report" which tinkers on the surface, with the effect of tossing ccTLD Managers a few bones on issues that don't concern them really, and to demand that the fundamental questions that affect us ccTLD Managers are asked and answered.
I strongly urge you, Eberhard, to clearly and succinctly set out the following matters:
- what you think the fundamental questions are - what you think is irrelevant in the current set of proposals - why you think the fundamental questions you mention have to be solved by the CCWG, as opposed to the ccNSO itself or the CWG
Based on the wide consensus in the CCWG, including among other ccTLD managers, I think you might find yourself out on a limb and representing the views of nobody other than yourself.
I would welcome knowing whether that is the case, or whether your views are shared by the majority.
Unfortunately, in the absence of you setting out your arguments, neither of us will ever know...
bests
Jordan [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Dear ccTLD colleagues, It is with reluctance that I react to this thread, but I feel obliged to do so. Reluctance, because I prefer to ignore Eberhard Lisse when he sends out one of his quite characteristic emails. Obliged, however, because as his advice to you on how to deal with the request for community feed-back on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 proposals published on 4 May, he "strongly urge[s] all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish². I consider that to be very poor, even irresponsible, advice, and urge you to read the report and give your feed-back. If you don¹t agree; let us know, if you have suggestions for improvements; tell us. But above all: give us guidance with your opinion on the specific issues that we ask your feed-back on in the report. The Enhancement of ICANN¹s Accountability is an inseparable part of the IANA Stewardship Transition, a conditio sine qua non. The successful transition of the IANA Stewardship is a necessity for the global, single internet to develop to it¹s maximum potential. However, we will not have a second chance any time soon and thus we cannot afford to fail. The final proposals to enhance ICANN¹s accountability and to transition to IANA Stewardship are the ultimate test of the multi-stakeholder model and failure would, in the end, mean the end of that model. So you cannot even afford to ignore the CCWG draft proposals, or any other proposal in this process. Unless maybe if you want to get rid of the multi-stakeholder model... Like Eberhard Lisse, I am one of the ccTLD Community¹s participants in the CCWG. Very unlike Eberhard Lisse, I am proud of what the CCWG published on 4 May. It is certainly not perfect, it surely is not complete and it is definitely not final. The timeline, the enormous amount of work, the unknown territories we had to explore and insights and opinions we had to unite, made the process quite painful at times. But the result -and in the end that is what really counts- is good. To be honest: far better then I expected. And quite solid enough to ask your feed-back on. So it can be improved. Our three co-chairs Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert and León Felipe Sánchez-Ambia deserve no criticism, but our deep respect. For their leadership and guidance, for the substance they brought and also for the way they acted on feed-back from the group or individual members/participants. They were -and are- real assets in this process. Eberhard Lisse, in my opinion, is not. Best regards, Roelof A. Meijer CEO SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/> On 06-05-15 07:44, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Byron, Dear Colleagues,
To set the record straight, Dr Lisse's statements about the violation of the CCWG Accountability Charter and the dynamics of the group are a misrepresentation of facts. Speaking of facts, we are more than happy to provide details in response to the accusations as well as explanations we gave to Dr Lisse on the public mailing list, to support our statement.
We would also note for the benefit of readers of these lists that Dr Lisse has filed countless objections against almost everything the CCWG did since it started. Participants and members of the CCWG have expressed to the co-chairs that they consider Dr Lisse's behaviour as an attempt to discredit the work of fellow volunteers and derail the work of the group.
We will not burden everyone on the lists that were cc-ed with details, especially when we have the opportunity to discuss and engage on substance. But we wanted to set this record straight, and express our deep sadness about the use of such a process within the ccTLD community.
That being said, we encourage other ccTLD members and participants in the CCWG to express their views related to the substance of the proposals.
Best, Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill, co-chairs
Le 05/05/2015 11:36, Dr Eberhard Lisse a écrit :
[sorry for the double post, technical issue] Dear Byron,
as tmember appointed by the (chartering) ccNSO to the CCWG Accountability I have followed the Charter, in particular in raising my concerns of my points consistently being ignored and rejected by the Co-Chairs of this CCWG, one of whom is Mathieu Weill, the posting of whom, herein-under, I wish to address, "through the chair".
Please assure that staff forwards this to all Council Members who do not have access to the above lists.
These "current proposals" have been arrived at in violation of the Charter, without the necessary Consensus Call for all positions, and in violation of the Charter by refusing the opportunity to attach minority views.
They also have been rushed over the objection of myself in which I have been joined in various degrees, shape or form by appointed members of every constituency chartering, even several GAC members expressing themselves in this regard.
This was done in order to get "something" passed prior to a non existing deadline instead of doing this carefully, thoroughly and inclusively.
As usual the gNSO members and in particular un-appointed participants representing large interests were/are the driving force behind this rush-job.
The document is so convoluted that an expensive graphics company was hired for several months to generate these professional graphics in order to just be able to understand the document.
Even Mathieu doesn't understand it, because he not only refers to it as a "report" which under the Charter REQUIRES a Consensus Call and attachment of minority views, if any, and he alleges that it has any relevance to ccTLDs, which is has not.
The community he refers to is ill defined, and in any case the ccNSO has no mandate whatsoever to act on decisions, acts or omissions affecting individual ccTLDs.
According to the Charter the CCWG must address ALL accountability issues with the exception of administrative and operational IANA issues, which were to have been addressed by CWG Stewardship, where they were not being addressed, of course.
This was used to refuse and/or ignore any request that had anything to do with the root zone and/or the IANA Function, in particular the fundamental issues, which remain unresolved.
I will post something like this into the Comment Box for the record, but I strongly urge all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish.
Finally, I am personally offended by him thanking the ccTLD members and characterizing their participation, in particular since hardly any input by ccTLD members/participants had any effect on ccTLD Managers' positions, and because he does not mean it.
For me it is not a pleasure to work in this CCWG and in particular not an honor to work with him and any other of the other Co-Chairs.
el
On 2015-05-05 07:53, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Thank you Gabi for sharing this announcement.
In addition to the public comment announcement
(https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposa l-2015-05-04-en) the CCWG-Accountability produced some graphics describing the current proposals (PDF,
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52897394/XPL_CCWG_Illus tratedConcepts_v2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1430799940397&api=v2) , which you might find helpful, although of course nothing replaces reading the actual report.
While this report is not focused on IANA, it is very relevant to ccTLDs : it addresses the accountability enhancements requested by the CWG Iana stewardship transition latest proposal, proposes additional powers for the community, including the ccNSO, and strongly reinforces Icannn's appeal mechanisms.
For more details, the CCWG-Accountability will hold two identical webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on:
11 May from 11:00 12:30 UTC 11 May from 19:00 20:30 UTC
Details can be found here : https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en
I seize this opportunity to thank all ccTLD members and participants to this group. They have done a tremendous job, demonstrating the value of ccTLD inputs to the overall community. As co-chair, it is a great pleasure and an honour to work with such a team.
We are now more than ever in listening mode and look forward to your questions and feedbacks.
Best regards, Mathieu [...]
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
Dear all, My deep and unreserved support for Roelf´s words! The atmosphere and tone in the thread is most uncomfortable, destructive and worrying. Sincerly, Pär Brumark /*---*//* *//**//*Pär Brumark *//*ICANN GAC Representative*//*Niue*//** *Tel. Sweden: +46 70 589 73 70 <tel:%2B46%2070%20589%2073%2070> Tel. New Zealand: +64 9 889 03 90 *//* Skype: pbr112*//* */ Roelof Meijer skrev den 2015-05-06 17:37:
Dear ccTLD colleagues,
It is with reluctance that I react to this thread, but I feel obliged to do so. Reluctance, because I prefer to ignore Eberhard Lisse when he sends out one of his quite characteristic emails. Obliged, however, because as his advice to you on how to deal with the request for community feed-back on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 proposals published on 4 May, he "strongly urge[s] all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish².
I consider that to be very poor, even irresponsible, advice, and urge you to read the report and give your feed-back. If you don¹t agree; let us know, if you have suggestions for improvements; tell us. But above all: give us guidance with your opinion on the specific issues that we ask your feed-back on in the report.
The Enhancement of ICANN¹s Accountability is an inseparable part of the IANA Stewardship Transition, a conditio sine qua non. The successful transition of the IANA Stewardship is a necessity for the global, single internet to develop to it¹s maximum potential. However, we will not have a second chance any time soon and thus we cannot afford to fail. The final proposals to enhance ICANN¹s accountability and to transition to IANA Stewardship are the ultimate test of the multi-stakeholder model and failure would, in the end, mean the end of that model.
So you cannot even afford to ignore the CCWG draft proposals, or any other proposal in this process. Unless maybe if you want to get rid of the multi-stakeholder model...
Like Eberhard Lisse, I am one of the ccTLD Community¹s participants in the CCWG. Very unlike Eberhard Lisse, I am proud of what the CCWG published on 4 May. It is certainly not perfect, it surely is not complete and it is definitely not final. The timeline, the enormous amount of work, the unknown territories we had to explore and insights and opinions we had to unite, made the process quite painful at times. But the result -and in the end that is what really counts- is good. To be honest: far better then I expected. And quite solid enough to ask your feed-back on. So it can be improved.
Our three co-chairs Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert and León Felipe Sánchez-Ambia deserve no criticism, but our deep respect. For their leadership and guidance, for the substance they brought and also for the way they acted on feed-back from the group or individual members/participants. They were -and are- real assets in this process. Eberhard Lisse, in my opinion, is not.
Best regards,
Roelof A. Meijer CEO
SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/>
On 06-05-15 07:44, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Byron, Dear Colleagues,
To set the record straight, Dr Lisse's statements about the violation of the CCWG Accountability Charter and the dynamics of the group are a misrepresentation of facts. Speaking of facts, we are more than happy to provide details in response to the accusations as well as explanations we gave to Dr Lisse on the public mailing list, to support our statement.
We would also note for the benefit of readers of these lists that Dr Lisse has filed countless objections against almost everything the CCWG did since it started. Participants and members of the CCWG have expressed to the co-chairs that they consider Dr Lisse's behaviour as an attempt to discredit the work of fellow volunteers and derail the work of the group.
We will not burden everyone on the lists that were cc-ed with details, especially when we have the opportunity to discuss and engage on substance. But we wanted to set this record straight, and express our deep sadness about the use of such a process within the ccTLD community.
That being said, we encourage other ccTLD members and participants in the CCWG to express their views related to the substance of the proposals.
Best, Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill, co-chairs
Le 05/05/2015 11:36, Dr Eberhard Lisse a écrit :
[sorry for the double post, technical issue] Dear Byron,
as tmember appointed by the (chartering) ccNSO to the CCWG Accountability I have followed the Charter, in particular in raising my concerns of my points consistently being ignored and rejected by the Co-Chairs of this CCWG, one of whom is Mathieu Weill, the posting of whom, herein-under, I wish to address, "through the chair".
Please assure that staff forwards this to all Council Members who do not have access to the above lists.
These "current proposals" have been arrived at in violation of the Charter, without the necessary Consensus Call for all positions, and in violation of the Charter by refusing the opportunity to attach minority views.
They also have been rushed over the objection of myself in which I have been joined in various degrees, shape or form by appointed members of every constituency chartering, even several GAC members expressing themselves in this regard.
This was done in order to get "something" passed prior to a non existing deadline instead of doing this carefully, thoroughly and inclusively.
As usual the gNSO members and in particular un-appointed participants representing large interests were/are the driving force behind this rush-job.
The document is so convoluted that an expensive graphics company was hired for several months to generate these professional graphics in order to just be able to understand the document.
Even Mathieu doesn't understand it, because he not only refers to it as a "report" which under the Charter REQUIRES a Consensus Call and attachment of minority views, if any, and he alleges that it has any relevance to ccTLDs, which is has not.
The community he refers to is ill defined, and in any case the ccNSO has no mandate whatsoever to act on decisions, acts or omissions affecting individual ccTLDs.
According to the Charter the CCWG must address ALL accountability issues with the exception of administrative and operational IANA issues, which were to have been addressed by CWG Stewardship, where they were not being addressed, of course.
This was used to refuse and/or ignore any request that had anything to do with the root zone and/or the IANA Function, in particular the fundamental issues, which remain unresolved.
I will post something like this into the Comment Box for the record, but I strongly urge all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish.
Finally, I am personally offended by him thanking the ccTLD members and characterizing their participation, in particular since hardly any input by ccTLD members/participants had any effect on ccTLD Managers' positions, and because he does not mean it.
For me it is not a pleasure to work in this CCWG and in particular not an honor to work with him and any other of the other Co-Chairs.
el
On 2015-05-05 07:53, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Thank you Gabi for sharing this announcement.
In addition to the public comment announcement
(https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposa l-2015-05-04-en) the CCWG-Accountability produced some graphics describing the current proposals (PDF,
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52897394/XPL_CCWG_Illus tratedConcepts_v2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1430799940397&api=v2) , which you might find helpful, although of course nothing replaces reading the actual report.
While this report is not focused on IANA, it is very relevant to ccTLDs : it addresses the accountability enhancements requested by the CWG Iana stewardship transition latest proposal, proposes additional powers for the community, including the ccNSO, and strongly reinforces Icannn's appeal mechanisms.
For more details, the CCWG-Accountability will hold two identical webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on:
11 May from 11:00 12:30 UTC 11 May from 19:00 20:30 UTC
Details can be found here : https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en
I seize this opportunity to thank all ccTLD members and participants to this group. They have done a tremendous job, demonstrating the value of ccTLD inputs to the overall community. As co-chair, it is a great pleasure and an honour to work with such a team.
We are now more than ever in listening mode and look forward to your questions and feedbacks.
Best regards, Mathieu [...]
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I fully support Roelof's analysis. Martin -----Original Message----- From: cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Roelof Meijer Sent: 06 May 2015 16:37 To: ccnso-members@icann.org; cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org; Eberhard Lisse Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1) Dear ccTLD colleagues, It is with reluctance that I react to this thread, but I feel obliged to do so. Reluctance, because I prefer to ignore Eberhard Lisse when he sends out one of his quite characteristic emails. Obliged, however, because as his advice to you on how to deal with the request for community feed-back on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 proposals published on 4 May, he "strongly urge[s] all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish². I consider that to be very poor, even irresponsible, advice, and urge you to read the report and give your feed-back. If you don¹t agree; let us know, if you have suggestions for improvements; tell us. But above all: give us guidance with your opinion on the specific issues that we ask your feed-back on in the report. The Enhancement of ICANN¹s Accountability is an inseparable part of the IANA Stewardship Transition, a conditio sine qua non. The successful transition of the IANA Stewardship is a necessity for the global, single internet to develop to it¹s maximum potential. However, we will not have a second chance any time soon and thus we cannot afford to fail. The final proposals to enhance ICANN¹s accountability and to transition to IANA Stewardship are the ultimate test of the multi-stakeholder model and failure would, in the end, mean the end of that model. So you cannot even afford to ignore the CCWG draft proposals, or any other proposal in this process. Unless maybe if you want to get rid of the multi-stakeholder model... Like Eberhard Lisse, I am one of the ccTLD Community¹s participants in the CCWG. Very unlike Eberhard Lisse, I am proud of what the CCWG published on 4 May. It is certainly not perfect, it surely is not complete and it is definitely not final. The timeline, the enormous amount of work, the unknown territories we had to explore and insights and opinions we had to unite, made the process quite painful at times. But the result -and in the end that is what really counts- is good. To be honest: far better then I expected. And quite solid enough to ask your feed-back on. So it can be improved. Our three co-chairs Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert and León Felipe Sánchez-Ambia deserve no criticism, but our deep respect. For their leadership and guidance, for the substance they brought and also for the way they acted on feed-back from the group or individual members/participants. They were -and are- real assets in this process. Eberhard Lisse, in my opinion, is not. Best regards, Roelof A. Meijer CEO SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/> On 06-05-15 07:44, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Byron, Dear Colleagues,
To set the record straight, Dr Lisse's statements about the violation of the CCWG Accountability Charter and the dynamics of the group are a misrepresentation of facts. Speaking of facts, we are more than happy to provide details in response to the accusations as well as explanations we gave to Dr Lisse on the public mailing list, to support our statement.
We would also note for the benefit of readers of these lists that Dr Lisse has filed countless objections against almost everything the CCWG did since it started. Participants and members of the CCWG have expressed to the co-chairs that they consider Dr Lisse's behaviour as an attempt to discredit the work of fellow volunteers and derail the work of the group.
We will not burden everyone on the lists that were cc-ed with details, especially when we have the opportunity to discuss and engage on substance. But we wanted to set this record straight, and express our deep sadness about the use of such a process within the ccTLD community.
That being said, we encourage other ccTLD members and participants in the CCWG to express their views related to the substance of the proposals.
Best, Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill, co-chairs
Le 05/05/2015 11:36, Dr Eberhard Lisse a écrit :
[sorry for the double post, technical issue] Dear Byron,
as tmember appointed by the (chartering) ccNSO to the CCWG Accountability I have followed the Charter, in particular in raising my concerns of my points consistently being ignored and rejected by the Co-Chairs of this CCWG, one of whom is Mathieu Weill, the posting of whom, herein-under, I wish to address, "through the chair".
Please assure that staff forwards this to all Council Members who do not have access to the above lists.
These "current proposals" have been arrived at in violation of the Charter, without the necessary Consensus Call for all positions, and in violation of the Charter by refusing the opportunity to attach minority views.
They also have been rushed over the objection of myself in which I have been joined in various degrees, shape or form by appointed members of every constituency chartering, even several GAC members expressing themselves in this regard.
This was done in order to get "something" passed prior to a non existing deadline instead of doing this carefully, thoroughly and inclusively.
As usual the gNSO members and in particular un-appointed participants representing large interests were/are the driving force behind this rush-job.
The document is so convoluted that an expensive graphics company was hired for several months to generate these professional graphics in order to just be able to understand the document.
Even Mathieu doesn't understand it, because he not only refers to it as a "report" which under the Charter REQUIRES a Consensus Call and attachment of minority views, if any, and he alleges that it has any relevance to ccTLDs, which is has not.
The community he refers to is ill defined, and in any case the ccNSO has no mandate whatsoever to act on decisions, acts or omissions affecting individual ccTLDs.
According to the Charter the CCWG must address ALL accountability issues with the exception of administrative and operational IANA issues, which were to have been addressed by CWG Stewardship, where they were not being addressed, of course.
This was used to refuse and/or ignore any request that had anything to do with the root zone and/or the IANA Function, in particular the fundamental issues, which remain unresolved.
I will post something like this into the Comment Box for the record, but I strongly urge all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish.
Finally, I am personally offended by him thanking the ccTLD members and characterizing their participation, in particular since hardly any input by ccTLD members/participants had any effect on ccTLD Managers' positions, and because he does not mean it.
For me it is not a pleasure to work in this CCWG and in particular not an honor to work with him and any other of the other Co-Chairs.
el
On 2015-05-05 07:53, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Thank you Gabi for sharing this announcement.
In addition to the public comment announcement
(https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-prop osa l-2015-05-04-en) the CCWG-Accountability produced some graphics describing the current proposals (PDF,
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52897394/XPL_CCWG_Il lus tratedConcepts_v2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1430799940397&api=v2 ) , which you might find helpful, although of course nothing replaces reading the actual report.
While this report is not focused on IANA, it is very relevant to ccTLDs : it addresses the accountability enhancements requested by the CWG Iana stewardship transition latest proposal, proposes additional powers for the community, including the ccNSO, and strongly reinforces Icannn's appeal mechanisms.
For more details, the CCWG-Accountability will hold two identical webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on:
11 May from 11:00 12:30 UTC 11 May from 19:00 20:30 UTC
Details can be found here : https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en
I seize this opportunity to thank all ccTLD members and participants to this group. They have done a tremendous job, demonstrating the value of ccTLD inputs to the overall community. As co-chair, it is a great pleasure and an honour to work with such a team.
We are now more than ever in listening mode and look forward to your questions and feedbacks.
Best regards, Mathieu [...]
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
I will leave it to others to sort out the details of the discussion, but as a participant in the CCWG I would like to note my opinion that the co-chairs, rapporteurs, and staff have demonstrated outstanding fairness and professionalism in managing what has been, so far, a complex and demanding endeavor. David McAuley -----Original Message----- From: cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 12:20 PM To: roelofmeijerforwarder; ccnso-members@icann.org; cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org; Eberhard Lisse Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1) I fully support Roelof's analysis. Martin -----Original Message----- From: cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Roelof Meijer Sent: 06 May 2015 16:37 To: ccnso-members@icann.org; cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org; Eberhard Lisse Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1) Dear ccTLD colleagues, It is with reluctance that I react to this thread, but I feel obliged to do so. Reluctance, because I prefer to ignore Eberhard Lisse when he sends out one of his quite characteristic emails. Obliged, however, because as his advice to you on how to deal with the request for community feed-back on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 proposals published on 4 May, he "strongly urge[s] all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish². I consider that to be very poor, even irresponsible, advice, and urge you to read the report and give your feed-back. If you don¹t agree; let us know, if you have suggestions for improvements; tell us. But above all: give us guidance with your opinion on the specific issues that we ask your feed-back on in the report. The Enhancement of ICANN¹s Accountability is an inseparable part of the IANA Stewardship Transition, a conditio sine qua non. The successful transition of the IANA Stewardship is a necessity for the global, single internet to develop to it¹s maximum potential. However, we will not have a second chance any time soon and thus we cannot afford to fail. The final proposals to enhance ICANN¹s accountability and to transition to IANA Stewardship are the ultimate test of the multi-stakeholder model and failure would, in the end, mean the end of that model. So you cannot even afford to ignore the CCWG draft proposals, or any other proposal in this process. Unless maybe if you want to get rid of the multi-stakeholder model... Like Eberhard Lisse, I am one of the ccTLD Community¹s participants in the CCWG. Very unlike Eberhard Lisse, I am proud of what the CCWG published on 4 May. It is certainly not perfect, it surely is not complete and it is definitely not final. The timeline, the enormous amount of work, the unknown territories we had to explore and insights and opinions we had to unite, made the process quite painful at times. But the result -and in the end that is what really counts- is good. To be honest: far better then I expected. And quite solid enough to ask your feed-back on. So it can be improved. Our three co-chairs Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert and León Felipe Sánchez-Ambia deserve no criticism, but our deep respect. For their leadership and guidance, for the substance they brought and also for the way they acted on feed-back from the group or individual members/participants. They were -and are- real assets in this process. Eberhard Lisse, in my opinion, is not. Best regards, Roelof A. Meijer CEO SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/> On 06-05-15 07:44, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Byron, Dear Colleagues,
To set the record straight, Dr Lisse's statements about the violation of the CCWG Accountability Charter and the dynamics of the group are a misrepresentation of facts. Speaking of facts, we are more than happy to provide details in response to the accusations as well as explanations we gave to Dr Lisse on the public mailing list, to support our statement.
We would also note for the benefit of readers of these lists that Dr Lisse has filed countless objections against almost everything the CCWG did since it started. Participants and members of the CCWG have expressed to the co-chairs that they consider Dr Lisse's behaviour as an attempt to discredit the work of fellow volunteers and derail the work of the group.
We will not burden everyone on the lists that were cc-ed with details, especially when we have the opportunity to discuss and engage on substance. But we wanted to set this record straight, and express our deep sadness about the use of such a process within the ccTLD community.
That being said, we encourage other ccTLD members and participants in the CCWG to express their views related to the substance of the proposals.
Best, Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill, co-chairs
Le 05/05/2015 11:36, Dr Eberhard Lisse a écrit :
[sorry for the double post, technical issue] Dear Byron,
as tmember appointed by the (chartering) ccNSO to the CCWG Accountability I have followed the Charter, in particular in raising my concerns of my points consistently being ignored and rejected by the Co-Chairs of this CCWG, one of whom is Mathieu Weill, the posting of whom, herein-under, I wish to address, "through the chair".
Please assure that staff forwards this to all Council Members who do not have access to the above lists.
These "current proposals" have been arrived at in violation of the Charter, without the necessary Consensus Call for all positions, and in violation of the Charter by refusing the opportunity to attach minority views.
They also have been rushed over the objection of myself in which I have been joined in various degrees, shape or form by appointed members of every constituency chartering, even several GAC members expressing themselves in this regard.
This was done in order to get "something" passed prior to a non existing deadline instead of doing this carefully, thoroughly and inclusively.
As usual the gNSO members and in particular un-appointed participants representing large interests were/are the driving force behind this rush-job.
The document is so convoluted that an expensive graphics company was hired for several months to generate these professional graphics in order to just be able to understand the document.
Even Mathieu doesn't understand it, because he not only refers to it as a "report" which under the Charter REQUIRES a Consensus Call and attachment of minority views, if any, and he alleges that it has any relevance to ccTLDs, which is has not.
The community he refers to is ill defined, and in any case the ccNSO has no mandate whatsoever to act on decisions, acts or omissions affecting individual ccTLDs.
According to the Charter the CCWG must address ALL accountability issues with the exception of administrative and operational IANA issues, which were to have been addressed by CWG Stewardship, where they were not being addressed, of course.
This was used to refuse and/or ignore any request that had anything to do with the root zone and/or the IANA Function, in particular the fundamental issues, which remain unresolved.
I will post something like this into the Comment Box for the record, but I strongly urge all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish.
Finally, I am personally offended by him thanking the ccTLD members and characterizing their participation, in particular since hardly any input by ccTLD members/participants had any effect on ccTLD Managers' positions, and because he does not mean it.
For me it is not a pleasure to work in this CCWG and in particular not an honor to work with him and any other of the other Co-Chairs.
el
On 2015-05-05 07:53, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Thank you Gabi for sharing this announcement.
In addition to the public comment announcement
(https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-prop osa l-2015-05-04-en) the CCWG-Accountability produced some graphics describing the current proposals (PDF,
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52897394/XPL_CCWG_Il lus tratedConcepts_v2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1430799940397&api=v2 ) , which you might find helpful, although of course nothing replaces reading the actual report.
While this report is not focused on IANA, it is very relevant to ccTLDs : it addresses the accountability enhancements requested by the CWG Iana stewardship transition latest proposal, proposes additional powers for the community, including the ccNSO, and strongly reinforces Icannn's appeal mechanisms.
For more details, the CCWG-Accountability will hold two identical webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on:
11 May from 11:00 12:30 UTC 11 May from 19:00 20:30 UTC
Details can be found here : https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en
I seize this opportunity to thank all ccTLD members and participants to this group. They have done a tremendous job, demonstrating the value of ccTLD inputs to the overall community. As co-chair, it is a great pleasure and an honour to work with such a team.
We are now more than ever in listening mode and look forward to your questions and feedbacks.
Best regards, Mathieu [...]
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
+1 David W. Maher Senior Vice President – Law & Policy Public Interest Registry 312 375 4849 On 5/6/15 1:22 PM, "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
I will leave it to others to sort out the details of the discussion, but as a participant in the CCWG I would like to note my opinion that the co-chairs, rapporteurs, and staff have demonstrated outstanding fairness and professionalism in managing what has been, so far, a complex and demanding endeavor.
David McAuley
-----Original Message----- From: cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 12:20 PM To: roelofmeijerforwarder; ccnso-members@icann.org; cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org; Eberhard Lisse Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1)
I fully support Roelof's analysis.
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Roelof Meijer Sent: 06 May 2015 16:37 To: ccnso-members@icann.org; cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org; Eberhard Lisse Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1)
Dear ccTLD colleagues,
It is with reluctance that I react to this thread, but I feel obliged to do so. Reluctance, because I prefer to ignore Eberhard Lisse when he sends out one of his quite characteristic emails. Obliged, however, because as his advice to you on how to deal with the request for community feed-back on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 proposals published on 4 May, he "strongly urge[s] all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish².
I consider that to be very poor, even irresponsible, advice, and urge you to read the report and give your feed-back. If you don¹t agree; let us know, if you have suggestions for improvements; tell us. But above all: give us guidance with your opinion on the specific issues that we ask your feed-back on in the report.
The Enhancement of ICANN¹s Accountability is an inseparable part of the IANA Stewardship Transition, a conditio sine qua non. The successful transition of the IANA Stewardship is a necessity for the global, single internet to develop to it¹s maximum potential. However, we will not have a second chance any time soon and thus we cannot afford to fail. The final proposals to enhance ICANN¹s accountability and to transition to IANA Stewardship are the ultimate test of the multi-stakeholder model and failure would, in the end, mean the end of that model.
So you cannot even afford to ignore the CCWG draft proposals, or any other proposal in this process. Unless maybe if you want to get rid of the multi-stakeholder model...
Like Eberhard Lisse, I am one of the ccTLD Community¹s participants in the CCWG. Very unlike Eberhard Lisse, I am proud of what the CCWG published on 4 May. It is certainly not perfect, it surely is not complete and it is definitely not final. The timeline, the enormous amount of work, the unknown territories we had to explore and insights and opinions we had to unite, made the process quite painful at times. But the result -and in the end that is what really counts- is good. To be honest: far better then I expected. And quite solid enough to ask your feed-back on. So it can be improved.
Our three co-chairs Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert and León Felipe Sánchez-Ambia deserve no criticism, but our deep respect. For their leadership and guidance, for the substance they brought and also for the way they acted on feed-back from the group or individual members/participants. They were -and are- real assets in this process. Eberhard Lisse, in my opinion, is not.
Best regards,
Roelof A. Meijer CEO
SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/>
On 06-05-15 07:44, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Byron, Dear Colleagues,
To set the record straight, Dr Lisse's statements about the violation of the CCWG Accountability Charter and the dynamics of the group are a misrepresentation of facts. Speaking of facts, we are more than happy to provide details in response to the accusations as well as explanations we gave to Dr Lisse on the public mailing list, to support our statement.
We would also note for the benefit of readers of these lists that Dr Lisse has filed countless objections against almost everything the CCWG did since it started. Participants and members of the CCWG have expressed to the co-chairs that they consider Dr Lisse's behaviour as an attempt to discredit the work of fellow volunteers and derail the work of the group.
We will not burden everyone on the lists that were cc-ed with details, especially when we have the opportunity to discuss and engage on substance. But we wanted to set this record straight, and express our deep sadness about the use of such a process within the ccTLD community.
That being said, we encourage other ccTLD members and participants in the CCWG to express their views related to the substance of the proposals.
Best, Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill, co-chairs
Le 05/05/2015 11:36, Dr Eberhard Lisse a écrit :
[sorry for the double post, technical issue] Dear Byron,
as tmember appointed by the (chartering) ccNSO to the CCWG Accountability I have followed the Charter, in particular in raising my concerns of my points consistently being ignored and rejected by the Co-Chairs of this CCWG, one of whom is Mathieu Weill, the posting of whom, herein-under, I wish to address, "through the chair".
Please assure that staff forwards this to all Council Members who do not have access to the above lists.
These "current proposals" have been arrived at in violation of the Charter, without the necessary Consensus Call for all positions, and in violation of the Charter by refusing the opportunity to attach minority views.
They also have been rushed over the objection of myself in which I have been joined in various degrees, shape or form by appointed members of every constituency chartering, even several GAC members expressing themselves in this regard.
This was done in order to get "something" passed prior to a non existing deadline instead of doing this carefully, thoroughly and inclusively.
As usual the gNSO members and in particular un-appointed participants representing large interests were/are the driving force behind this rush-job.
The document is so convoluted that an expensive graphics company was hired for several months to generate these professional graphics in order to just be able to understand the document.
Even Mathieu doesn't understand it, because he not only refers to it as a "report" which under the Charter REQUIRES a Consensus Call and attachment of minority views, if any, and he alleges that it has any relevance to ccTLDs, which is has not.
The community he refers to is ill defined, and in any case the ccNSO has no mandate whatsoever to act on decisions, acts or omissions affecting individual ccTLDs.
According to the Charter the CCWG must address ALL accountability issues with the exception of administrative and operational IANA issues, which were to have been addressed by CWG Stewardship, where they were not being addressed, of course.
This was used to refuse and/or ignore any request that had anything to do with the root zone and/or the IANA Function, in particular the fundamental issues, which remain unresolved.
I will post something like this into the Comment Box for the record, but I strongly urge all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish.
Finally, I am personally offended by him thanking the ccTLD members and characterizing their participation, in particular since hardly any input by ccTLD members/participants had any effect on ccTLD Managers' positions, and because he does not mean it.
For me it is not a pleasure to work in this CCWG and in particular not an honor to work with him and any other of the other Co-Chairs.
el
On 2015-05-05 07:53, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Thank you Gabi for sharing this announcement.
In addition to the public comment announcement
(https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-prop osa l-2015-05-04-en) the CCWG-Accountability produced some graphics describing the current proposals (PDF,
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52897394/XPL_CCWG_Il lus tratedConcepts_v2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1430799940397&api=v2 ) , which you might find helpful, although of course nothing replaces reading the actual report.
While this report is not focused on IANA, it is very relevant to ccTLDs : it addresses the accountability enhancements requested by the CWG Iana stewardship transition latest proposal, proposes additional powers for the community, including the ccNSO, and strongly reinforces Icannn's appeal mechanisms.
For more details, the CCWG-Accountability will hold two identical webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on:
11 May from 11:00 12:30 UTC 11 May from 19:00 20:30 UTC
Details can be found here : https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en
I seize this opportunity to thank all ccTLD members and participants to this group. They have done a tremendous job, demonstrating the value of ccTLD inputs to the overall community. As co-chair, it is a great pleasure and an honour to work with such a team.
We are now more than ever in listening mode and look forward to your questions and feedbacks.
Best regards, Mathieu [...]
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
That’s a great executive summary! Cheers, Roelof On 06-05-15 20:22, "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
I will leave it to others to sort out the details of the discussion, but as a participant in the CCWG I would like to note my opinion that the co-chairs, rapporteurs, and staff have demonstrated outstanding fairness and professionalism in managing what has been, so far, a complex and demanding endeavor.
David McAuley
-----Original Message----- From: cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 12:20 PM To: roelofmeijerforwarder; ccnso-members@icann.org; cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org; Eberhard Lisse Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1)
I fully support Roelof's analysis.
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Roelof Meijer Sent: 06 May 2015 16:37 To: ccnso-members@icann.org; cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org; Eberhard Lisse Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1)
Dear ccTLD colleagues,
It is with reluctance that I react to this thread, but I feel obliged to do so. Reluctance, because I prefer to ignore Eberhard Lisse when he sends out one of his quite characteristic emails. Obliged, however, because as his advice to you on how to deal with the request for community feed-back on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 proposals published on 4 May, he "strongly urge[s] all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish².
I consider that to be very poor, even irresponsible, advice, and urge you to read the report and give your feed-back. If you don¹t agree; let us know, if you have suggestions for improvements; tell us. But above all: give us guidance with your opinion on the specific issues that we ask your feed-back on in the report.
The Enhancement of ICANN¹s Accountability is an inseparable part of the IANA Stewardship Transition, a conditio sine qua non. The successful transition of the IANA Stewardship is a necessity for the global, single internet to develop to it¹s maximum potential. However, we will not have a second chance any time soon and thus we cannot afford to fail. The final proposals to enhance ICANN¹s accountability and to transition to IANA Stewardship are the ultimate test of the multi-stakeholder model and failure would, in the end, mean the end of that model.
So you cannot even afford to ignore the CCWG draft proposals, or any other proposal in this process. Unless maybe if you want to get rid of the multi-stakeholder model...
Like Eberhard Lisse, I am one of the ccTLD Community¹s participants in the CCWG. Very unlike Eberhard Lisse, I am proud of what the CCWG published on 4 May. It is certainly not perfect, it surely is not complete and it is definitely not final. The timeline, the enormous amount of work, the unknown territories we had to explore and insights and opinions we had to unite, made the process quite painful at times. But the result -and in the end that is what really counts- is good. To be honest: far better then I expected. And quite solid enough to ask your feed-back on. So it can be improved.
Our three co-chairs Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert and León Felipe Sánchez-Ambia deserve no criticism, but our deep respect. For their leadership and guidance, for the substance they brought and also for the way they acted on feed-back from the group or individual members/participants. They were -and are- real assets in this process. Eberhard Lisse, in my opinion, is not.
Best regards,
Roelof A. Meijer CEO
SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/>
On 06-05-15 07:44, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Byron, Dear Colleagues,
To set the record straight, Dr Lisse's statements about the violation of the CCWG Accountability Charter and the dynamics of the group are a misrepresentation of facts. Speaking of facts, we are more than happy to provide details in response to the accusations as well as explanations we gave to Dr Lisse on the public mailing list, to support our statement.
We would also note for the benefit of readers of these lists that Dr Lisse has filed countless objections against almost everything the CCWG did since it started. Participants and members of the CCWG have expressed to the co-chairs that they consider Dr Lisse's behaviour as an attempt to discredit the work of fellow volunteers and derail the work of the group.
We will not burden everyone on the lists that were cc-ed with details, especially when we have the opportunity to discuss and engage on substance. But we wanted to set this record straight, and express our deep sadness about the use of such a process within the ccTLD community.
That being said, we encourage other ccTLD members and participants in the CCWG to express their views related to the substance of the proposals.
Best, Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill, co-chairs
Le 05/05/2015 11:36, Dr Eberhard Lisse a écrit :
[sorry for the double post, technical issue] Dear Byron,
as tmember appointed by the (chartering) ccNSO to the CCWG Accountability I have followed the Charter, in particular in raising my concerns of my points consistently being ignored and rejected by the Co-Chairs of this CCWG, one of whom is Mathieu Weill, the posting of whom, herein-under, I wish to address, "through the chair".
Please assure that staff forwards this to all Council Members who do not have access to the above lists.
These "current proposals" have been arrived at in violation of the Charter, without the necessary Consensus Call for all positions, and in violation of the Charter by refusing the opportunity to attach minority views.
They also have been rushed over the objection of myself in which I have been joined in various degrees, shape or form by appointed members of every constituency chartering, even several GAC members expressing themselves in this regard.
This was done in order to get "something" passed prior to a non existing deadline instead of doing this carefully, thoroughly and inclusively.
As usual the gNSO members and in particular un-appointed participants representing large interests were/are the driving force behind this rush-job.
The document is so convoluted that an expensive graphics company was hired for several months to generate these professional graphics in order to just be able to understand the document.
Even Mathieu doesn't understand it, because he not only refers to it as a "report" which under the Charter REQUIRES a Consensus Call and attachment of minority views, if any, and he alleges that it has any relevance to ccTLDs, which is has not.
The community he refers to is ill defined, and in any case the ccNSO has no mandate whatsoever to act on decisions, acts or omissions affecting individual ccTLDs.
According to the Charter the CCWG must address ALL accountability issues with the exception of administrative and operational IANA issues, which were to have been addressed by CWG Stewardship, where they were not being addressed, of course.
This was used to refuse and/or ignore any request that had anything to do with the root zone and/or the IANA Function, in particular the fundamental issues, which remain unresolved.
I will post something like this into the Comment Box for the record, but I strongly urge all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish.
Finally, I am personally offended by him thanking the ccTLD members and characterizing their participation, in particular since hardly any input by ccTLD members/participants had any effect on ccTLD Managers' positions, and because he does not mean it.
For me it is not a pleasure to work in this CCWG and in particular not an honor to work with him and any other of the other Co-Chairs.
el
On 2015-05-05 07:53, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Thank you Gabi for sharing this announcement.
In addition to the public comment announcement
(https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-prop osa l-2015-05-04-en) the CCWG-Accountability produced some graphics describing the current proposals (PDF,
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52897394/XPL_CCWG_Il lus tratedConcepts_v2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1430799940397&api=v2 ) , which you might find helpful, although of course nothing replaces reading the actual report.
While this report is not focused on IANA, it is very relevant to ccTLDs : it addresses the accountability enhancements requested by the CWG Iana stewardship transition latest proposal, proposes additional powers for the community, including the ccNSO, and strongly reinforces Icannn's appeal mechanisms.
For more details, the CCWG-Accountability will hold two identical webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on:
11 May from 11:00 12:30 UTC 11 May from 19:00 20:30 UTC
Details can be found here : https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en
I seize this opportunity to thank all ccTLD members and participants to this group. They have done a tremendous job, demonstrating the value of ccTLD inputs to the overall community. As co-chair, it is a great pleasure and an honour to work with such a team.
We are now more than ever in listening mode and look forward to your questions and feedbacks.
Best regards, Mathieu [...]
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
<filtered out list that will return a bounce to my mail> As participant in the CCWG and member of the CWG, I like to add my absolute +1 to the few lines stated by McAuley as those words apply to both groups. Regards On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:22 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
I will leave it to others to sort out the details of the discussion, but as a participant in the CCWG I would like to note my opinion that the co-chairs, rapporteurs, and staff have demonstrated outstanding fairness and professionalism in managing what has been, so far, a complex and demanding endeavor.
David McAuley
-----Original Message----- From: cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org [mailto: cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 12:20 PM To: roelofmeijerforwarder; ccnso-members@icann.org; cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org; Eberhard Lisse Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1)
I fully support Roelof's analysis.
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org [mailto: cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Roelof Meijer Sent: 06 May 2015 16:37 To: ccnso-members@icann.org; cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org; Eberhard Lisse Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1)
Dear ccTLD colleagues,
It is with reluctance that I react to this thread, but I feel obliged to do so. Reluctance, because I prefer to ignore Eberhard Lisse when he sends out one of his quite characteristic emails. Obliged, however, because as his advice to you on how to deal with the request for community feed-back on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 proposals published on 4 May, he "strongly urge[s] all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish².
I consider that to be very poor, even irresponsible, advice, and urge you to read the report and give your feed-back. If you don¹t agree; let us know, if you have suggestions for improvements; tell us. But above all: give us guidance with your opinion on the specific issues that we ask your feed-back on in the report.
The Enhancement of ICANN¹s Accountability is an inseparable part of the IANA Stewardship Transition, a conditio sine qua non. The successful transition of the IANA Stewardship is a necessity for the global, single internet to develop to it¹s maximum potential. However, we will not have a second chance any time soon and thus we cannot afford to fail. The final proposals to enhance ICANN¹s accountability and to transition to IANA Stewardship are the ultimate test of the multi-stakeholder model and failure would, in the end, mean the end of that model.
So you cannot even afford to ignore the CCWG draft proposals, or any other proposal in this process. Unless maybe if you want to get rid of the multi-stakeholder model...
Like Eberhard Lisse, I am one of the ccTLD Community¹s participants in the CCWG. Very unlike Eberhard Lisse, I am proud of what the CCWG published on 4 May. It is certainly not perfect, it surely is not complete and it is definitely not final. The timeline, the enormous amount of work, the unknown territories we had to explore and insights and opinions we had to unite, made the process quite painful at times. But the result -and in the end that is what really counts- is good. To be honest: far better then I expected. And quite solid enough to ask your feed-back on. So it can be improved.
Our three co-chairs Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert and León Felipe Sánchez-Ambia deserve no criticism, but our deep respect. For their leadership and guidance, for the substance they brought and also for the way they acted on feed-back from the group or individual members/participants. They were -and are- real assets in this process. Eberhard Lisse, in my opinion, is not.
Best regards,
Roelof A. Meijer CEO
SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/>
On 06-05-15 07:44, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Byron, Dear Colleagues,
To set the record straight, Dr Lisse's statements about the violation of the CCWG Accountability Charter and the dynamics of the group are a misrepresentation of facts. Speaking of facts, we are more than happy to provide details in response to the accusations as well as explanations we gave to Dr Lisse on the public mailing list, to support our statement.
We would also note for the benefit of readers of these lists that Dr Lisse has filed countless objections against almost everything the CCWG did since it started. Participants and members of the CCWG have expressed to the co-chairs that they consider Dr Lisse's behaviour as an attempt to discredit the work of fellow volunteers and derail the work of the group.
We will not burden everyone on the lists that were cc-ed with details, especially when we have the opportunity to discuss and engage on substance. But we wanted to set this record straight, and express our deep sadness about the use of such a process within the ccTLD community.
That being said, we encourage other ccTLD members and participants in the CCWG to express their views related to the substance of the proposals.
Best, Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill, co-chairs
Le 05/05/2015 11:36, Dr Eberhard Lisse a écrit :
[sorry for the double post, technical issue] Dear Byron,
as tmember appointed by the (chartering) ccNSO to the CCWG Accountability I have followed the Charter, in particular in raising my concerns of my points consistently being ignored and rejected by the Co-Chairs of this CCWG, one of whom is Mathieu Weill, the posting of whom, herein-under, I wish to address, "through the chair".
Please assure that staff forwards this to all Council Members who do not have access to the above lists.
These "current proposals" have been arrived at in violation of the Charter, without the necessary Consensus Call for all positions, and in violation of the Charter by refusing the opportunity to attach minority views.
They also have been rushed over the objection of myself in which I have been joined in various degrees, shape or form by appointed members of every constituency chartering, even several GAC members expressing themselves in this regard.
This was done in order to get "something" passed prior to a non existing deadline instead of doing this carefully, thoroughly and inclusively.
As usual the gNSO members and in particular un-appointed participants representing large interests were/are the driving force behind this rush-job.
The document is so convoluted that an expensive graphics company was hired for several months to generate these professional graphics in order to just be able to understand the document.
Even Mathieu doesn't understand it, because he not only refers to it as a "report" which under the Charter REQUIRES a Consensus Call and attachment of minority views, if any, and he alleges that it has any relevance to ccTLDs, which is has not.
The community he refers to is ill defined, and in any case the ccNSO has no mandate whatsoever to act on decisions, acts or omissions affecting individual ccTLDs.
According to the Charter the CCWG must address ALL accountability issues with the exception of administrative and operational IANA issues, which were to have been addressed by CWG Stewardship, where they were not being addressed, of course.
This was used to refuse and/or ignore any request that had anything to do with the root zone and/or the IANA Function, in particular the fundamental issues, which remain unresolved.
I will post something like this into the Comment Box for the record, but I strongly urge all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish.
Finally, I am personally offended by him thanking the ccTLD members and characterizing their participation, in particular since hardly any input by ccTLD members/participants had any effect on ccTLD Managers' positions, and because he does not mean it.
For me it is not a pleasure to work in this CCWG and in particular not an honor to work with him and any other of the other Co-Chairs.
el
On 2015-05-05 07:53, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Thank you Gabi for sharing this announcement.
In addition to the public comment announcement
(https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-prop osa l-2015-05-04-en) the CCWG-Accountability produced some graphics describing the current proposals (PDF,
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52897394/XPL_CCWG_Il lus tratedConcepts_v2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1430799940397&api=v2 ) , which you might find helpful, although of course nothing replaces reading the actual report.
While this report is not focused on IANA, it is very relevant to ccTLDs : it addresses the accountability enhancements requested by the CWG Iana stewardship transition latest proposal, proposes additional powers for the community, including the ccNSO, and strongly reinforces Icannn's appeal mechanisms.
For more details, the CCWG-Accountability will hold two identical webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on:
11 May from 11:00 12:30 UTC 11 May from 19:00 20:30 UTC
Details can be found here : https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en
I seize this opportunity to thank all ccTLD members and participants to this group. They have done a tremendous job, demonstrating the value of ccTLD inputs to the overall community. As co-chair, it is a great pleasure and an honour to work with such a team.
We are now more than ever in listening mode and look forward to your questions and feedbacks.
Best regards, Mathieu [...]
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
+1 Giovanni On 06 May 2015, at 18:20, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>> wrote: I fully support Roelof's analysis. Martin -----Original Message----- From: cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org<mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org> [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Roelof Meijer Sent: 06 May 2015 16:37 To: ccnso-members@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-members@icann.org>; cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org<mailto:cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org>; Eberhard Lisse Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1) Dear ccTLD colleagues, It is with reluctance that I react to this thread, but I feel obliged to do so. Reluctance, because I prefer to ignore Eberhard Lisse when he sends out one of his quite characteristic emails. Obliged, however, because as his advice to you on how to deal with the request for community feed-back on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 proposals published on 4 May, he "strongly urge[s] all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish². I consider that to be very poor, even irresponsible, advice, and urge you to read the report and give your feed-back. If you don¹t agree; let us know, if you have suggestions for improvements; tell us. But above all: give us guidance with your opinion on the specific issues that we ask your feed-back on in the report. The Enhancement of ICANN¹s Accountability is an inseparable part of the IANA Stewardship Transition, a conditio sine qua non. The successful transition of the IANA Stewardship is a necessity for the global, single internet to develop to it¹s maximum potential. However, we will not have a second chance any time soon and thus we cannot afford to fail. The final proposals to enhance ICANN¹s accountability and to transition to IANA Stewardship are the ultimate test of the multi-stakeholder model and failure would, in the end, mean the end of that model. So you cannot even afford to ignore the CCWG draft proposals, or any other proposal in this process. Unless maybe if you want to get rid of the multi-stakeholder model... Like Eberhard Lisse, I am one of the ccTLD Community¹s participants in the CCWG. Very unlike Eberhard Lisse, I am proud of what the CCWG published on 4 May. It is certainly not perfect, it surely is not complete and it is definitely not final. The timeline, the enormous amount of work, the unknown territories we had to explore and insights and opinions we had to unite, made the process quite painful at times. But the result -and in the end that is what really counts- is good. To be honest: far better then I expected. And quite solid enough to ask your feed-back on. So it can be improved. Our three co-chairs Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert and León Felipe Sánchez-Ambia deserve no criticism, but our deep respect. For their leadership and guidance, for the substance they brought and also for the way they acted on feed-back from the group or individual members/participants. They were -and are- real assets in this process. Eberhard Lisse, in my opinion, is not. Best regards, Roelof A. Meijer CEO SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl<http://www.sidn.nl> <http://www.sidn.nl/> On 06-05-15 07:44, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Byron, Dear Colleagues, To set the record straight, Dr Lisse's statements about the violation of the CCWG Accountability Charter and the dynamics of the group are a misrepresentation of facts. Speaking of facts, we are more than happy to provide details in response to the accusations as well as explanations we gave to Dr Lisse on the public mailing list, to support our statement. We would also note for the benefit of readers of these lists that Dr Lisse has filed countless objections against almost everything the CCWG did since it started. Participants and members of the CCWG have expressed to the co-chairs that they consider Dr Lisse's behaviour as an attempt to discredit the work of fellow volunteers and derail the work of the group. We will not burden everyone on the lists that were cc-ed with details, especially when we have the opportunity to discuss and engage on substance. But we wanted to set this record straight, and express our deep sadness about the use of such a process within the ccTLD community. That being said, we encourage other ccTLD members and participants in the CCWG to express their views related to the substance of the proposals. Best, Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill, co-chairs Le 05/05/2015 11:36, Dr Eberhard Lisse a écrit : [sorry for the double post, technical issue] Dear Byron, as tmember appointed by the (chartering) ccNSO to the CCWG Accountability I have followed the Charter, in particular in raising my concerns of my points consistently being ignored and rejected by the Co-Chairs of this CCWG, one of whom is Mathieu Weill, the posting of whom, herein-under, I wish to address, "through the chair". Please assure that staff forwards this to all Council Members who do not have access to the above lists. These "current proposals" have been arrived at in violation of the Charter, without the necessary Consensus Call for all positions, and in violation of the Charter by refusing the opportunity to attach minority views. They also have been rushed over the objection of myself in which I have been joined in various degrees, shape or form by appointed members of every constituency chartering, even several GAC members expressing themselves in this regard. This was done in order to get "something" passed prior to a non existing deadline instead of doing this carefully, thoroughly and inclusively. As usual the gNSO members and in particular un-appointed participants representing large interests were/are the driving force behind this rush-job. The document is so convoluted that an expensive graphics company was hired for several months to generate these professional graphics in order to just be able to understand the document. Even Mathieu doesn't understand it, because he not only refers to it as a "report" which under the Charter REQUIRES a Consensus Call and attachment of minority views, if any, and he alleges that it has any relevance to ccTLDs, which is has not. The community he refers to is ill defined, and in any case the ccNSO has no mandate whatsoever to act on decisions, acts or omissions affecting individual ccTLDs. According to the Charter the CCWG must address ALL accountability issues with the exception of administrative and operational IANA issues, which were to have been addressed by CWG Stewardship, where they were not being addressed, of course. This was used to refuse and/or ignore any request that had anything to do with the root zone and/or the IANA Function, in particular the fundamental issues, which remain unresolved. I will post something like this into the Comment Box for the record, but I strongly urge all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish. Finally, I am personally offended by him thanking the ccTLD members and characterizing their participation, in particular since hardly any input by ccTLD members/participants had any effect on ccTLD Managers' positions, and because he does not mean it. For me it is not a pleasure to work in this CCWG and in particular not an honor to work with him and any other of the other Co-Chairs. el On 2015-05-05 07:53, Mathieu Weill wrote: Thank you Gabi for sharing this announcement. In addition to the public comment announcement (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-prop osa l-2015-05-04-en) the CCWG-Accountability produced some graphics describing the current proposals (PDF, https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52897394/XPL_CCWG_Il lus tratedConcepts_v2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1430799940397&api=v2 ) , which you might find helpful, although of course nothing replaces reading the actual report. While this report is not focused on IANA, it is very relevant to ccTLDs : it addresses the accountability enhancements requested by the CWG Iana stewardship transition latest proposal, proposes additional powers for the community, including the ccNSO, and strongly reinforces Icannn's appeal mechanisms. For more details, the CCWG-Accountability will hold two identical webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on: 11 May from 11:00 12:30 UTC 11 May from 19:00 20:30 UTC Details can be found here : https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en I seize this opportunity to thank all ccTLD members and participants to this group. They have done a tremendous job, demonstrating the value of ccTLD inputs to the overall community. As co-chair, it is a great pleasure and an honour to work with such a team. We are now more than ever in listening mode and look forward to your questions and feedbacks. Best regards, Mathieu [...] -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill ***************************** _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org<mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org 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/> [cid:2934C4EE-CAF2-4BA4-9DC0-AB9A25CC6ADC@Docomointertouch.com] #2015euWA Please consider the environment before printing this email.<http://christmas2014.eurid.eu> 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
+1. For Roelof's comments on captioned subject matter. Respect is due to all community members who participated and worked very hard on this proposal. RD On May 6, 2015 11:37 AM, "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
Dear ccTLD colleagues,
It is with reluctance that I react to this thread, but I feel obliged to do so. Reluctance, because I prefer to ignore Eberhard Lisse when he sends out one of his quite characteristic emails. Obliged, however, because as his advice to you on how to deal with the request for community feed-back on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 proposals published on 4 May, he "strongly urge[s] all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish².
I consider that to be very poor, even irresponsible, advice, and urge you to read the report and give your feed-back. If you don¹t agree; let us know, if you have suggestions for improvements; tell us. But above all: give us guidance with your opinion on the specific issues that we ask your feed-back on in the report.
The Enhancement of ICANN¹s Accountability is an inseparable part of the IANA Stewardship Transition, a conditio sine qua non. The successful transition of the IANA Stewardship is a necessity for the global, single internet to develop to it¹s maximum potential. However, we will not have a second chance any time soon and thus we cannot afford to fail. The final proposals to enhance ICANN¹s accountability and to transition to IANA Stewardship are the ultimate test of the multi-stakeholder model and failure would, in the end, mean the end of that model.
So you cannot even afford to ignore the CCWG draft proposals, or any other proposal in this process. Unless maybe if you want to get rid of the multi-stakeholder model...
Like Eberhard Lisse, I am one of the ccTLD Community¹s participants in the CCWG. Very unlike Eberhard Lisse, I am proud of what the CCWG published on 4 May. It is certainly not perfect, it surely is not complete and it is definitely not final. The timeline, the enormous amount of work, the unknown territories we had to explore and insights and opinions we had to unite, made the process quite painful at times. But the result -and in the end that is what really counts- is good. To be honest: far better then I expected. And quite solid enough to ask your feed-back on. So it can be improved.
Our three co-chairs Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert and León Felipe Sánchez-Ambia deserve no criticism, but our deep respect. For their leadership and guidance, for the substance they brought and also for the way they acted on feed-back from the group or individual members/participants. They were -and are- real assets in this process. Eberhard Lisse, in my opinion, is not.
Best regards,
Roelof A. Meijer CEO
SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/>
On 06-05-15 07:44, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Byron, Dear Colleagues,
To set the record straight, Dr Lisse's statements about the violation of the CCWG Accountability Charter and the dynamics of the group are a misrepresentation of facts. Speaking of facts, we are more than happy to provide details in response to the accusations as well as explanations we gave to Dr Lisse on the public mailing list, to support our statement.
We would also note for the benefit of readers of these lists that Dr Lisse has filed countless objections against almost everything the CCWG did since it started. Participants and members of the CCWG have expressed to the co-chairs that they consider Dr Lisse's behaviour as an attempt to discredit the work of fellow volunteers and derail the work of the group.
We will not burden everyone on the lists that were cc-ed with details, especially when we have the opportunity to discuss and engage on substance. But we wanted to set this record straight, and express our deep sadness about the use of such a process within the ccTLD community.
That being said, we encourage other ccTLD members and participants in the CCWG to express their views related to the substance of the proposals.
Best, Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill, co-chairs
Le 05/05/2015 11:36, Dr Eberhard Lisse a écrit :
[sorry for the double post, technical issue] Dear Byron,
as tmember appointed by the (chartering) ccNSO to the CCWG Accountability I have followed the Charter, in particular in raising my concerns of my points consistently being ignored and rejected by the Co-Chairs of this CCWG, one of whom is Mathieu Weill, the posting of whom, herein-under, I wish to address, "through the chair".
Please assure that staff forwards this to all Council Members who do not have access to the above lists.
These "current proposals" have been arrived at in violation of the Charter, without the necessary Consensus Call for all positions, and in violation of the Charter by refusing the opportunity to attach minority views.
They also have been rushed over the objection of myself in which I have been joined in various degrees, shape or form by appointed members of every constituency chartering, even several GAC members expressing themselves in this regard.
This was done in order to get "something" passed prior to a non existing deadline instead of doing this carefully, thoroughly and inclusively.
As usual the gNSO members and in particular un-appointed participants representing large interests were/are the driving force behind this rush-job.
The document is so convoluted that an expensive graphics company was hired for several months to generate these professional graphics in order to just be able to understand the document.
Even Mathieu doesn't understand it, because he not only refers to it as a "report" which under the Charter REQUIRES a Consensus Call and attachment of minority views, if any, and he alleges that it has any relevance to ccTLDs, which is has not.
The community he refers to is ill defined, and in any case the ccNSO has no mandate whatsoever to act on decisions, acts or omissions affecting individual ccTLDs.
According to the Charter the CCWG must address ALL accountability issues with the exception of administrative and operational IANA issues, which were to have been addressed by CWG Stewardship, where they were not being addressed, of course.
This was used to refuse and/or ignore any request that had anything to do with the root zone and/or the IANA Function, in particular the fundamental issues, which remain unresolved.
I will post something like this into the Comment Box for the record, but I strongly urge all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish.
Finally, I am personally offended by him thanking the ccTLD members and characterizing their participation, in particular since hardly any input by ccTLD members/participants had any effect on ccTLD Managers' positions, and because he does not mean it.
For me it is not a pleasure to work in this CCWG and in particular not an honor to work with him and any other of the other Co-Chairs.
el
On 2015-05-05 07:53, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Thank you Gabi for sharing this announcement.
In addition to the public comment announcement
( https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposa l-2015-05-04-en) the CCWG-Accountability produced some graphics describing the current proposals (PDF,
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52897394/XPL_CCWG_Illus
tratedConcepts_v2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1430799940397&api=v2) , which you might find helpful, although of course nothing replaces reading the actual report.
While this report is not focused on IANA, it is very relevant to ccTLDs : it addresses the accountability enhancements requested by the CWG Iana stewardship transition latest proposal, proposes additional powers for the community, including the ccNSO, and strongly reinforces Icannn's appeal mechanisms.
For more details, the CCWG-Accountability will hold two identical webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on:
11 May from 11:00 12:30 UTC 11 May from 19:00 20:30 UTC
Details can be found here : https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en
I seize this opportunity to thank all ccTLD members and participants to this group. They have done a tremendous job, demonstrating the value of ccTLD inputs to the overall community. As co-chair, it is a great pleasure and an honour to work with such a team.
We are now more than ever in listening mode and look forward to your questions and feedbacks.
Best regards, Mathieu [...]
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 On Wednesday, May 6, 2015, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
+1. For Roelof's comments on captioned subject matter. Respect is due to all community members who participated and worked very hard on this proposal. RD
On May 6, 2015 11:37 AM, "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
Dear ccTLD colleagues,
It is with reluctance that I react to this thread, but I feel obliged to do so. Reluctance, because I prefer to ignore Eberhard Lisse when he sends out one of his quite characteristic emails. Obliged, however, because as his advice to you on how to deal with the request for community feed-back on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 proposals published on 4 May, he "strongly urge[s] all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish².
I consider that to be very poor, even irresponsible, advice, and urge you to read the report and give your feed-back. If you don¹t agree; let us know, if you have suggestions for improvements; tell us. But above all: give us guidance with your opinion on the specific issues that we ask
your
feed-back on in the report.
The Enhancement of ICANN¹s Accountability is an inseparable part of the IANA Stewardship Transition, a conditio sine qua non. The successful transition of the IANA Stewardship is a necessity for the global, single internet to develop to it¹s maximum potential. However, we will not have a second chance any time soon and thus we cannot afford to fail. The final proposals to enhance ICANN¹s accountability and to transition to IANA Stewardship are the ultimate test of the multi-stakeholder model and failure would, in the end, mean the end of that model.
So you cannot even afford to ignore the CCWG draft proposals, or any other proposal in this process. Unless maybe if you want to get rid of the multi-stakeholder model...
Like Eberhard Lisse, I am one of the ccTLD Community¹s participants in the CCWG. Very unlike Eberhard Lisse, I am proud of what the CCWG published on 4 May. It is certainly not perfect, it surely is not complete and it is definitely not final. The timeline, the enormous amount of work, the unknown territories we had to explore and insights and opinions we had to unite, made the process quite painful at times. But the result -and in the end that is what really counts- is good. To be honest: far better then I expected. And quite solid enough to ask your feed-back on. So it can be improved.
Our three co-chairs Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert and León Felipe Sánchez-Ambia deserve no criticism, but our deep respect. For their leadership and guidance, for the substance they brought and also for the way they acted on feed-back from the group or individual members/participants. They were -and are- real assets in this process. Eberhard Lisse, in my opinion, is not.
Best regards,
Roelof A. Meijer CEO
SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/>
On 06-05-15 07:44, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Byron, Dear Colleagues,
To set the record straight, Dr Lisse's statements about the violation of the CCWG Accountability Charter and the dynamics of the group are a misrepresentation of facts. Speaking of facts, we are more than happy to provide details in response to the accusations as well as explanations we gave to Dr Lisse on the public mailing list, to support our statement.
We would also note for the benefit of readers of these lists that Dr Lisse has filed countless objections against almost everything the CCWG did since it started. Participants and members of the CCWG have expressed to the co-chairs that they consider Dr Lisse's behaviour as an attempt to discredit the work of fellow volunteers and derail the work of the group.
We will not burden everyone on the lists that were cc-ed with details, especially when we have the opportunity to discuss and engage on substance. But we wanted to set this record straight, and express our deep sadness about the use of such a process within the ccTLD community.
That being said, we encourage other ccTLD members and participants in the CCWG to express their views related to the substance of the proposals.
Best, Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill, co-chairs
Le 05/05/2015 11:36, Dr Eberhard Lisse a écrit :
[sorry for the double post, technical issue] Dear Byron,
as tmember appointed by the (chartering) ccNSO to the CCWG Accountability I have followed the Charter, in particular in raising my concerns of my points consistently being ignored and rejected by the Co-Chairs of this CCWG, one of whom is Mathieu Weill, the posting of whom, herein-under, I wish to address, "through the chair".
Please assure that staff forwards this to all Council Members who do not have access to the above lists.
These "current proposals" have been arrived at in violation of the Charter, without the necessary Consensus Call for all positions, and in violation of the Charter by refusing the opportunity to attach minority views.
They also have been rushed over the objection of myself in which I have been joined in various degrees, shape or form by appointed members of every constituency chartering, even several GAC members expressing themselves in this regard.
This was done in order to get "something" passed prior to a non existing deadline instead of doing this carefully, thoroughly and inclusively.
As usual the gNSO members and in particular un-appointed participants representing large interests were/are the driving force behind this rush-job.
The document is so convoluted that an expensive graphics company was hired for several months to generate these professional graphics in order to just be able to understand the document.
Even Mathieu doesn't understand it, because he not only refers to it as a "report" which under the Charter REQUIRES a Consensus Call and attachment of minority views, if any, and he alleges that it has any relevance to ccTLDs, which is has not.
The community he refers to is ill defined, and in any case the ccNSO has no mandate whatsoever to act on decisions, acts or omissions affecting individual ccTLDs.
According to the Charter the CCWG must address ALL accountability issues with the exception of administrative and operational IANA issues, which were to have been addressed by CWG Stewardship, where they were not being addressed, of course.
This was used to refuse and/or ignore any request that had anything to do with the root zone and/or the IANA Function, in particular the fundamental issues, which remain unresolved.
I will post something like this into the Comment Box for the record, but I strongly urge all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish.
Finally, I am personally offended by him thanking the ccTLD members and characterizing their participation, in particular since hardly any input by ccTLD members/participants had any effect on ccTLD Managers' positions, and because he does not mean it.
For me it is not a pleasure to work in this CCWG and in particular not an honor to work with him and any other of the other Co-Chairs.
el
On 2015-05-05 07:53, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Thank you Gabi for sharing this announcement.
In addition to the public comment announcement
( https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposa l-2015-05-04-en) the CCWG-Accountability produced some graphics describing the current proposals (PDF,
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52897394/XPL_CCWG_Illus
tratedConcepts_v2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1430799940397&api=v2) , which you might find helpful, although of course nothing replaces reading the actual report.
While this report is not focused on IANA, it is very relevant to ccTLDs : it addresses the accountability enhancements requested by the CWG Iana stewardship transition latest proposal, proposes additional powers for the community, including the ccNSO, and strongly reinforces Icannn's appeal mechanisms.
For more details, the CCWG-Accountability will hold two identical webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on:
11 May from 11:00 12:30 UTC 11 May from 19:00 20:30 UTC
Details can be found here : https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en
I seize this opportunity to thank all ccTLD members and participants to this group. They have done a tremendous job, demonstrating the value of ccTLD inputs to the overall community. As co-chair, it is a great pleasure and an honour to work with such a team.
We are now more than ever in listening mode and look forward to your questions and feedbacks.
Best regards, Mathieu [...]
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.) ICANN Fellow / ISOC Member Web/OGPL Portal Specialist National Information Technology Agency (NITA) Ghana Open Data Initiative (GODI) Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana Tel; +233 20 812881 Email: wisdom_dk@hotmail.com wisdom.donkor@data.gov.gh wisdom.dk@gmail.com Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: facebook@wisdom_dk Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh
participants (13)
-
Adebunmi AKINBO -
David W. Maher -
Dr Eberhard Lisse -
Giovanni Seppia -
Jordan Carter -
Martin Boyle -
Mathieu Weill -
McAuley, David -
Pär Brumark -
Roelof Meijer -
Rudolph Daniel -
Seun Ojedeji -
Wisdom Donkor