Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition
Respetful disagreement. I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the “new” definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place. Put another way, I think that the exposition in WS1 precisely describes the commitments that MUST be made before a transition is allowed to occur. More importantly, I think there is growing consensus across the community that this is so. To state it affirmatively – in the absence “mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur. Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key From: Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Dear all, I read again the new proposed definition of the Work Streams, and I found it too different from the one in our charter: In the charter: * Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; * Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition The new proposal: * Work Stream 1 mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. * All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board. I don’t believe that we are allowed to change any part of the charter without going back to the chartering organizations and ask for their approval. On the other hand, the separation of WS 1 and WS 2 was for the purpose of having the accountability mechanisms necessary before the transition done in time, and the new definition doesn’t satisfy this requirement I would prefer stay with the charter definition for all those reasons -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _____ <http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active.
I would just like to echo what Mathieu already mentioned: The drafting team for the charter did not want to be prescriptive and went on record stating this multiple times. The charter was intentionally kept quite general in order to allow the CCWG to fill it with life. In fact we are tasked to put flesh to the bones. Thomas
Am 15.01.2015 um 15:22 schrieb Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:
Respetful disagreement. I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the “new” definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place. Put another way, I think that the exposition in WS1 precisely describes the commitments that MUST be made before a transition is allowed to occur. More importantly, I think there is growing consensus across the community that this is so. To state it affirmatively – in the absence “mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur.
Paul
**NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
From: Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition
Dear all,
I read again the new proposed definition of the Work Streams, and I found it too different from the one in our charter:
In the charter: · Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; · Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition
The new proposal: · Work Stream 1 mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. · All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board.
I don’t believe that we are allowed to change any part of the charter without going back to the chartering organizations and ask for their approval.
On the other hand, the separation of WS 1 and WS 2 was for the purpose of having the accountability mechanisms necessary before the transition done in time, and the new definition doesn’t satisfy this requirement
I would prefer stay with the charter definition for all those reasons
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 Paul has eloquently expressed my views in a manner far superior to anything I could write. Thanks. One could argue that our current system of accountability and transparency (reconsideration, Appeal, CEP, IR, DIDP), with some tweaks, should actually be sufficient going forward. It looks great: on paper. The problem is that a system designed for redress (per Bruce) actually functions as a system of review (per Robin), and a rather cursory review system at that. We simply must have mechanisms designed to ensure that we have real systems of accountability, ones that does not rely on the good faith and open-mindedness of any particular Board or staff member or group, in place before the transition can be allowed to occur. -----Original Message----- From: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> To: "'Tijani BEN JEMAA'" <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>, <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:22:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Respetful disagreement. I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the “new” definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place. Put another way, I think that the exposition in WS1 precisely describes the commitments that MUST be made before a transition is allowed to occur. More importantly, I think there is growing consensus across the community that this is so. To state it affirmatively – in the absence “mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur. Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key From: Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Dear all, I read again the new proposed definition of the Work Streams, and I found it too different from the one in our charter: In the charter: · Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; · Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition The new proposal: · Work Stream 1 mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. · All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board. I don’t believe that we are allowed to change any part of the charter without going back to the chartering organizations and ask for their approval. On the other hand, the separation of WS 1 and WS 2 was for the purpose of having the accountability mechanisms necessary before the transition done in time, and the new definition doesn’t satisfy this requirement I would prefer stay with the charter definition for all those reasons -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active.
Dear All, I do not understand who agreed with whom What has been changed from the Charter. I personally fully agree with the following Quote "* in the absence “**mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability ( in relation with work stream 1 of CCWG ,for three distinct areas , Naming, Numbers and Protocols, including parameter ) could be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur." * *Unquote* *Kavouss * 2015-01-15 16:06 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <emorris@milk.toast.net>:
+1
Paul has eloquently expressed my views in a manner far superior to anything I could write. Thanks.
One could argue that our current system of accountability and transparency (reconsideration, Appeal, CEP, IR, DIDP), with some tweaks, should actually be sufficient going forward. It looks great: on paper. The problem is that a system designed for redress (per Bruce) actually functions as a system of review (per Robin), and a rather cursory review system at that. We simply must have mechanisms designed to ensure that we have real systems of accountability, ones that does not rely on the good faith and open-mindedness of any particular Board or staff member or group, in place before the transition can be allowed to occur.
-----Original Message----- From: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> To: "'Tijani BEN JEMAA'" <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>, < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:22:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition
Respetful disagreement. I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the “new” definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place. Put another way, I think that the exposition in WS1 precisely describes the commitments that MUST be made before a transition is allowed to occur. More importantly, I think there is growing consensus across the community that this is so. To state it affirmatively – in the absence “mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur.
Paul
***NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 **** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
*From:* Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn] *Sent:* Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition
Dear all,
I read again the new proposed definition of the Work Streams, and I found it too different from the one in our charter:
In the charter: · *Work Stream 1*: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; · *Work Stream 2*: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition
The new proposal: · *Work Stream 1* mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. · All other consensus items could be in *Work Stream 2*, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board.
I don’t believe that we are allowed to change any part of the charter without going back to the chartering organizations and ask for their approval.
On the other hand, the separation of WS 1 and WS 2 was for the purpose of having the accountability mechanisms necessary before the transition done in time, and the new definition doesn’t satisfy this requirement
I would prefer stay with the charter definition for all those reasons
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Tijani BEN JEMAA * Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------ <http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I agree with Paul, Mathieu etc - the Charter language is the skeleton. The language proposed sets out to characterise why we would select items - i.e. why they have to be done before the transition. We have to set out transparently the criteria we are using to decide what has to be in place. This language helps do that. best Jordan On 16 January 2015 at 04:17, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, I do not understand who agreed with whom What has been changed from the Charter. I personally fully agree with the following Quote "* in the absence "**mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability ( in relation with work stream 1 of CCWG ,for three distinct areas , Naming, Numbers and Protocols, including parameter ) could be implemented if it had consensus support from the community" the IANA Functions transition should not occur." * *Unquote*
*Kavouss *
2015-01-15 16:06 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <emorris@milk.toast.net>:
+1
Paul has eloquently expressed my views in a manner far superior to anything I could write. Thanks.
One could argue that our current system of accountability and transparency (reconsideration, Appeal, CEP, IR, DIDP), with some tweaks, should actually be sufficient going forward. It looks great: on paper. The problem is that a system designed for redress (per Bruce) actually functions as a system of review (per Robin), and a rather cursory review system at that. We simply must have mechanisms designed to ensure that we have real systems of accountability, ones that does not rely on the good faith and open-mindedness of any particular Board or staff member or group, in place before the transition can be allowed to occur.
-----Original Message----- From: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> To: "'Tijani BEN JEMAA'" <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>, < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:22:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition
Respetful disagreement. I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the "new" definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place. Put another way, I think that the exposition in WS1 precisely describes the commitments that MUST be made before a transition is allowed to occur. More importantly, I think there is growing consensus across the community that this is so. To state it affirmatively - in the absence "mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community" the IANA Functions transition should not occur.
Paul
***NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 **** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
*From:* Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn] *Sent:* Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition
Dear all,
I read again the new proposed definition of the Work Streams, and I found it too different from the one in our charter:
In the charter: · *Work Stream 1*: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; · *Work Stream 2*: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition
The new proposal: · *Work Stream 1* mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. · All other consensus items could be in *Work Stream 2*, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board.
I don't believe that we are allowed to change any part of the charter without going back to the chartering organizations and ask for their approval.
On the other hand, the separation of WS 1 and WS 2 was for the purpose of having the accountability mechanisms necessary before the transition done in time, and the new definition doesn't satisfy this requirement
I would prefer stay with the charter definition for all those reasons
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Tijani BEN JEMAA * Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------ <http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability2 mailing list Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability2
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*
+1 better said than I did! P **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:40 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; ianatransition@icann.org; ccwg-accountability2@icann.org; ccwg-accountability1@icann.org; ccwg-accountability3 Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [Area 2] Work Streams definition I agree with Paul, Mathieu etc - the Charter language is the skeleton. The language proposed sets out to characterise why we would select items - i.e. why they have to be done before the transition. We have to set out transparently the criteria we are using to decide what has to be in place. This language helps do that. best Jordan On 16 January 2015 at 04:17, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear All, I do not understand who agreed with whom What has been changed from the Charter. I personally fully agree with the following Quote " in the absence mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability ( in relation with work stream 1 of CCWG ,for three distinct areas , Naming, Numbers and Protocols, including parameter ) could be implemented if it had consensus support from the community the IANA Functions transition should not occur." Unquote Kavouss 2015-01-15 16:06 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <emorris@milk.toast.net <mailto:emorris@milk.toast.net> >: +1 Paul has eloquently expressed my views in a manner far superior to anything I could write. Thanks. One could argue that our current system of accountability and transparency (reconsideration, Appeal, CEP, IR, DIDP), with some tweaks, should actually be sufficient going forward. It looks great: on paper. The problem is that a system designed for redress (per Bruce) actually functions as a system of review (per Robin), and a rather cursory review system at that. We simply must have mechanisms designed to ensure that we have real systems of accountability, ones that does not rely on the good faith and open-mindedness of any particular Board or staff member or group, in place before the transition can be allowed to occur. -----Original Message----- From: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > To: "'Tijani BEN JEMAA'" <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> >, <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:22:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Respetful disagreement. I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the new definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place. Put another way, I think that the exposition in WS1 precisely describes the commitments that MUST be made before a transition is allowed to occur. More importantly, I think there is growing consensus across the community that this is so. To state it affirmatively in the absence mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community the IANA Functions transition should not occur. Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> or paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key From: Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> ] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Dear all, I read again the new proposed definition of the Work Streams, and I found it too different from the one in our charter: In the charter: * Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; * Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition The new proposal: * Work Stream 1 mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. * All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board. I dont believe that we are allowed to change any part of the charter without going back to the chartering organizations and ask for their approval. On the other hand, the separation of WS 1 and WS 2 was for the purpose of having the accountability mechanisms necessary before the transition done in time, and the new definition doesnt satisfy this requirement I would prefer stay with the charter definition for all those reasons ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 <tel:%2B%20216%2070%20853%C2%A0376> 376 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- _____ <http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability2 mailing list Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability2 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
Not to belabor this much more, and I may be being pedantic... It appears to read as if WS1 is about putting in place mechanisms that "provide the community with confidence" but not specifically about putting in place accountability mechanisms or measures. There is a big difference between putting in in place process mechanisms to provide confidence (as it now seems to imply) and putting in place actual accountability mechanisms which is what the original definition suggested. The second definition is fine for so long as it explicitly includes the first as well. It might be better if it read something like: *Work Stream 1*: is focused on mechanisms that 1) enhance ICANN's accountability and must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition, and 2) that provide the community with confidence that any accountability measures that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. Matthew On 1/15/2015 10:40 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
I agree with Paul, Mathieu etc - the Charter language is the skeleton. The language proposed sets out to characterise why we would select items - i.e. why they have to be done before the transition.
We have to set out transparently the criteria we are using to decide what has to be in place. This language helps do that.
best Jordan
On 16 January 2015 at 04:17, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All, I do not understand who agreed with whom What has been changed from the Charter. I personally fully agree with the following Quote "*/_in the absence “_/**/_mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability ( in relation with work stream 1 of CCWG ,for three distinct areas , Naming, Numbers and Protocols, including parameter ) could be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur." _/* */_Unquote_/* _ _ _Kavouss _
2015-01-15 16:06 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <emorris@milk.toast.net <mailto:emorris@milk.toast.net>>:
+1 Paul has eloquently expressed my views in a manner far superior to anything I could write. Thanks. One could argue that our current system of accountability and transparency (reconsideration, Appeal, CEP, IR, DIDP), with some tweaks, should actually be sufficient going forward. It looks great: on paper. The problem is that a system designed for redress (per Bruce) actually functions as a system of review (per Robin), and a rather cursory review system at that. We simply must have mechanisms designed to ensure that we have real systems of accountability, ones that does not rely on the good faith and open-mindedness of any particular Board or staff member or group, in place before the transition can be allowed to occur.
-----Original Message----- From: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> To: "'Tijani BEN JEMAA'" <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>>, <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:22:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Respetful disagreement. I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the “new” definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place. Put another way, I think that the exposition in WS1 precisely describes the commitments that MUST be made before a transition is allowed to occur. More importantly, I think there is growing consensus across the community that this is so. To state it affirmatively – in the absence “mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur. Paul ***NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 **** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
*From:* Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>] *Sent:* Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Dear all, I read again the new proposed definition of the Work Streams, and I found it too different from the one in our charter: In the charter: ·*Work Stream 1*: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; ·*Work Stream 2*: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition The new proposal: ·*Work Stream 1* mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. ·All other consensus items could be in *Work Stream 2*, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board. I don’t believe that we are allowed to change any part of the charter without going back to the chartering organizations and ask for their approval. On the other hand, the separation of WS 1 and WS 2 was for the purpose of having the accountability mechanisms necessary before the transition done in time, and the new definition doesn’t satisfy this requirement I would prefer stay with the charter definition for all those reasons --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Tijani BEN JEMAA * Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 <tel:%2B%20216%2070%20853%C2%A0376> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------ <http://www.avast.com/>
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability2 mailing list Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability2
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter
/To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential./
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987
+1 J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> Date: Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 11:16 AM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: ccwg-accountability3 <ccwg-accountability3@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability3@icann.org>>, "ccwg-accountability2@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org>" <ccwg-accountability2@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org>>, "ianatransition@icann.org<mailto:ianatransition@icann.org>" <ianatransition@icann.org<mailto:ianatransition@icann.org>>, "ccwg-accountability1@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability1@icann.org>" <ccwg-accountability1@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability1@icann.org>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Area 2] [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Not to belabor this much more, and I may be being pedantic... It appears to read as if WS1 is about putting in place mechanisms that "provide the community with confidence" but not specifically about putting in place accountability mechanisms or measures. There is a big difference between putting in in place process mechanisms to provide confidence (as it now seems to imply) and putting in place actual accountability mechanisms which is what the original definition suggested. The second definition is fine for so long as it explicitly includes the first as well. It might be better if it read something like: Work Stream 1: is focused on mechanisms that 1) enhance ICANN's accountability and must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition, and 2) that provide the community with confidence that any accountability measures that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. Matthew On 1/15/2015 10:40 AM, Jordan Carter wrote: I agree with Paul, Mathieu etc - the Charter language is the skeleton. The language proposed sets out to characterise why we would select items - i.e. why they have to be done before the transition. We have to set out transparently the criteria we are using to decide what has to be in place. This language helps do that. best Jordan On 16 January 2015 at 04:17, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All, I do not understand who agreed with whom What has been changed from the Charter. I personally fully agree with the following Quote " in the absence “mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability ( in relation with work stream 1 of CCWG ,for three distinct areas , Naming, Numbers and Protocols, including parameter ) could be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur." Unquote Kavouss 2015-01-15 16:06 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <emorris@milk.toast.net<mailto:emorris@milk.toast.net>>: +1 Paul has eloquently expressed my views in a manner far superior to anything I could write. Thanks. One could argue that our current system of accountability and transparency (reconsideration, Appeal, CEP, IR, DIDP), with some tweaks, should actually be sufficient going forward. It looks great: on paper. The problem is that a system designed for redress (per Bruce) actually functions as a system of review (per Robin), and a rather cursory review system at that. We simply must have mechanisms designed to ensure that we have real systems of accountability, ones that does not rely on the good faith and open-mindedness of any particular Board or staff member or group, in place before the transition can be allowed to occur. -----Original Message----- From: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> To: "'Tijani BEN JEMAA'" <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>>, <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:22:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Respetful disagreement. I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the “new” definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place. Put another way, I think that the exposition in WS1 precisely describes the commitments that MUST be made before a transition is allowed to occur. More importantly, I think there is growing consensus across the community that this is so. To state it affirmatively – in the absence “mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur. Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....> From: Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Dear all, I read again the new proposed definition of the Work Streams, and I found it too different from the one in our charter: In the charter: · Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; · Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition The new proposal: · Work Stream 1 mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. · All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board. I don’t believe that we are allowed to change any part of the charter without going back to the chartering organizations and ask for their approval. On the other hand, the separation of WS 1 and WS 2 was for the purpose of having the accountability mechanisms necessary before the transition done in time, and the new definition doesn’t satisfy this requirement I would prefer stay with the charter definition for all those reasons -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376<tel:%2B%20216%2070%20853%C2%A0376> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=OzlvZEZmglqSiE043GBLgchjeQUcLB9-w-lb1JD1k58&s=AGs3F_DL5FEFz2SehNlM1dao0aZRVxFhhMmbQYBUS_M&e=> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMD-g&...> est active. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=OzlvZEZmglqSiE043GBLgchjeQUcLB9-w-lb1JD1k58&s=fDkCzjlg0AzexP7TkeY2XedghPy7L4XbNarul0eAF-U&e=> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability2 mailing list Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ccwg-2Daccountability2&d=AwMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=OzlvZEZmglqSiE043GBLgchjeQUcLB9-w-lb1JD1k58&s=w3I6tbZCcpPe_gaRb-tVWVWj830Gk5O7rlQzJyzNe54&e=> -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=OzlvZEZmglqSiE043GBLgchjeQUcLB9-w-lb1JD1k58&s=fDkCzjlg0AzexP7TkeY2XedghPy7L4XbNarul0eAF-U&e=> -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org> + 44 771 247 2987
+1 from me too. I support Matthew's points...it's both. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 11:19 AM To: Matthew Shears; Jordan Carter; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ccwg-accountability3; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; ccwg-accountability2@icann.org; ccwg-accountability1@icann.org; ianatransition@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [Area 2] Work Streams definition +1 J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> Date: Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 11:16 AM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: ccwg-accountability3 <ccwg-accountability3@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability3@icann.org>>, "ccwg-accountability2@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org>" <ccwg-accountability2@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org>>, "ianatransition@icann.org<mailto:ianatransition@icann.org>" <ianatransition@icann.org<mailto:ianatransition@icann.org>>, "ccwg-accountability1@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability1@icann.org>" <ccwg-accountability1@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability1@icann.org>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Area 2] [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Not to belabor this much more, and I may be being pedantic... It appears to read as if WS1 is about putting in place mechanisms that "provide the community with confidence" but not specifically about putting in place accountability mechanisms or measures. There is a big difference between putting in in place process mechanisms to provide confidence (as it now seems to imply) and putting in place actual accountability mechanisms which is what the original definition suggested. The second definition is fine for so long as it explicitly includes the first as well. It might be better if it read something like: Work Stream 1: is focused on mechanisms that 1) enhance ICANN's accountability and must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition, and 2) that provide the community with confidence that any accountability measures that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. Matthew On 1/15/2015 10:40 AM, Jordan Carter wrote: I agree with Paul, Mathieu etc - the Charter language is the skeleton. The language proposed sets out to characterise why we would select items - i.e. why they have to be done before the transition. We have to set out transparently the criteria we are using to decide what has to be in place. This language helps do that. best Jordan On 16 January 2015 at 04:17, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All, I do not understand who agreed with whom What has been changed from the Charter. I personally fully agree with the following Quote " in the absence "mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability ( in relation with work stream 1 of CCWG ,for three distinct areas , Naming, Numbers and Protocols, including parameter ) could be implemented if it had consensus support from the community" the IANA Functions transition should not occur." Unquote Kavouss 2015-01-15 16:06 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <emorris@milk.toast.net<mailto:emorris@milk.toast.net>>: +1 Paul has eloquently expressed my views in a manner far superior to anything I could write. Thanks. One could argue that our current system of accountability and transparency (reconsideration, Appeal, CEP, IR, DIDP), with some tweaks, should actually be sufficient going forward. It looks great: on paper. The problem is that a system designed for redress (per Bruce) actually functions as a system of review (per Robin), and a rather cursory review system at that. We simply must have mechanisms designed to ensure that we have real systems of accountability, ones that does not rely on the good faith and open-mindedness of any particular Board or staff member or group, in place before the transition can be allowed to occur. -----Original Message----- From: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> To: "'Tijani BEN JEMAA'" <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>>, <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:22:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Respetful disagreement. I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the "new" definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place. Put another way, I think that the exposition in WS1 precisely describes the commitments that MUST be made before a transition is allowed to occur. More importantly, I think there is growing consensus across the community that this is so. To state it affirmatively - in the absence "mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community" the IANA Functions transition should not occur. Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....> From: Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Dear all, I read again the new proposed definition of the Work Streams, and I found it too different from the one in our charter: In the charter: · Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; · Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition The new proposal: · Work Stream 1 mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. · All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board. I don't believe that we are allowed to change any part of the charter without going back to the chartering organizations and ask for their approval. On the other hand, the separation of WS 1 and WS 2 was for the purpose of having the accountability mechanisms necessary before the transition done in time, and the new definition doesn't satisfy this requirement I would prefer stay with the charter definition for all those reasons -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376<tel:%2B%20216%2070%20853%C2%A0376> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=OzlvZEZmglqSiE043GBLgchjeQUcLB9-w-lb1JD1k58&s=AGs3F_DL5FEFz2SehNlM1dao0aZRVxFhhMmbQYBUS_M&e=> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMD-g&...> est active. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=OzlvZEZmglqSiE043GBLgchjeQUcLB9-w-lb1JD1k58&s=fDkCzjlg0AzexP7TkeY2XedghPy7L4XbNarul0eAF-U&e=> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability2 mailing list Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ccwg-2Daccountability2&d=AwMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=OzlvZEZmglqSiE043GBLgchjeQUcLB9-w-lb1JD1k58&s=w3I6tbZCcpPe_gaRb-tVWVWj830Gk5O7rlQzJyzNe54&e=> -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=OzlvZEZmglqSiE043GBLgchjeQUcLB9-w-lb1JD1k58&s=fDkCzjlg0AzexP7TkeY2XedghPy7L4XbNarul0eAF-U&e=> -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org> + 44 771 247 2987
I support Matthew's comments and amendments as well. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: 15 January 2015 16:27 To: Burr, Becky; Matthew Shears; Jordan Carter; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ccwg-accountability3; ianatransition@icann.org; ccwg-accountability2@icann.org; ccwg-accountability1@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [Area 2] Work Streams definition +1 from me too. I support Matthew's points...it's both. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 11:19 AM To: Matthew Shears; Jordan Carter; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ccwg-accountability3; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; ccwg-accountability2@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org>; ccwg-accountability1@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability1@icann.org>; ianatransition@icann.org<mailto:ianatransition@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [Area 2] Work Streams definition +1 J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> Date: Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 11:16 AM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: ccwg-accountability3 <ccwg-accountability3@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability3@icann.org>>, "ccwg-accountability2@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org>" <ccwg-accountability2@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2@icann.org>>, "ianatransition@icann.org<mailto:ianatransition@icann.org>" <ianatransition@icann.org<mailto:ianatransition@icann.org>>, "ccwg-accountability1@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability1@icann.org>" <ccwg-accountability1@icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability1@icann.org>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Area 2] [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Not to belabor this much more, and I may be being pedantic... It appears to read as if WS1 is about putting in place mechanisms that "provide the community with confidence" but not specifically about putting in place accountability mechanisms or measures. There is a big difference between putting in in place process mechanisms to provide confidence (as it now seems to imply) and putting in place actual accountability mechanisms which is what the original definition suggested. The second definition is fine for so long as it explicitly includes the first as well. It might be better if it read something like: Work Stream 1: is focused on mechanisms that 1) enhance ICANN's accountability and must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition, and 2) that provide the community with confidence that any accountability measures that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. Matthew On 1/15/2015 10:40 AM, Jordan Carter wrote: I agree with Paul, Mathieu etc - the Charter language is the skeleton. The language proposed sets out to characterise why we would select items - i.e. why they have to be done before the transition. We have to set out transparently the criteria we are using to decide what has to be in place. This language helps do that. best Jordan On 16 January 2015 at 04:17, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All, I do not understand who agreed with whom What has been changed from the Charter. I personally fully agree with the following Quote " in the absence "mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability ( in relation with work stream 1 of CCWG ,for three distinct areas , Naming, Numbers and Protocols, including parameter ) could be implemented if it had consensus support from the community" the IANA Functions transition should not occur." Unquote Kavouss 2015-01-15 16:06 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <emorris@milk.toast.net<mailto:emorris@milk.toast.net>>: +1 Paul has eloquently expressed my views in a manner far superior to anything I could write. Thanks. One could argue that our current system of accountability and transparency (reconsideration, Appeal, CEP, IR, DIDP), with some tweaks, should actually be sufficient going forward. It looks great: on paper. The problem is that a system designed for redress (per Bruce) actually functions as a system of review (per Robin), and a rather cursory review system at that. We simply must have mechanisms designed to ensure that we have real systems of accountability, ones that does not rely on the good faith and open-mindedness of any particular Board or staff member or group, in place before the transition can be allowed to occur. -----Original Message----- From: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> To: "'Tijani BEN JEMAA'" <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>>, <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:22:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Respetful disagreement. I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the "new" definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place. Put another way, I think that the exposition in WS1 precisely describes the commitments that MUST be made before a transition is allowed to occur. More importantly, I think there is growing consensus across the community that this is so. To state it affirmatively - in the absence "mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community" the IANA Functions transition should not occur. Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....> From: Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Dear all, I read again the new proposed definition of the Work Streams, and I found it too different from the one in our charter: In the charter: · Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; · Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition The new proposal: · Work Stream 1 mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. · All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board. I don't believe that we are allowed to change any part of the charter without going back to the chartering organizations and ask for their approval. On the other hand, the separation of WS 1 and WS 2 was for the purpose of having the accountability mechanisms necessary before the transition done in time, and the new definition doesn't satisfy this requirement I would prefer stay with the charter definition for all those reasons -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376<tel:%2B%20216%2070%20853%C2%A0376> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=OzlvZEZmglqSiE043GBLgchjeQUcLB9-w-lb1JD1k58&s=AGs3F_DL5FEFz2SehNlM1dao0aZRVxFhhMmbQYBUS_M&e=> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMD-g&...> est active. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=OzlvZEZmglqSiE043GBLgchjeQUcLB9-w-lb1JD1k58&s=fDkCzjlg0AzexP7TkeY2XedghPy7L4XbNarul0eAF-U&e=> _______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability2 mailing list Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org<mailto:Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ccwg-2Daccountability2&d=AwMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=OzlvZEZmglqSiE043GBLgchjeQUcLB9-w-lb1JD1k58&s=w3I6tbZCcpPe_gaRb-tVWVWj830Gk5O7rlQzJyzNe54&e=> -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=OzlvZEZmglqSiE043GBLgchjeQUcLB9-w-lb1JD1k58&s=fDkCzjlg0AzexP7TkeY2XedghPy7L4XbNarul0eAF-U&e=> -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org> + 44 771 247 2987 This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
I support Matthew's points and amendments. Thanks, Robin On Jan 16, 2015, at 12:07 AM, Fares, David wrote:
I support Matthew’s comments and amendments as well.
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: 15 January 2015 16:27 To: Burr, Becky; Matthew Shears; Jordan Carter; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ccwg-accountability3; ianatransition@icann.org; ccwg-accountability2@icann.org; ccwg-accountability1@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [Area 2] Work Streams definition
+1 from me too. I support Matthew’s points…it’s both.
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 11:19 AM To: Matthew Shears; Jordan Carter; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ccwg-accountability3; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; ccwg-accountability2@icann.org; ccwg-accountability1@icann.org; ianatransition@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [Area 2] Work Streams definition
+1
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
From: Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> Date: Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 11:16 AM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: ccwg-accountability3 <ccwg-accountability3@icann.org>, "ccwg-accountability2@icann.org" <ccwg-accountability2@icann.org>, "ianatransition@icann.org" <ianatransition@icann.org>, "ccwg-accountability1@icann.org" <ccwg-accountability1@icann.org>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Area 2] [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition
Not to belabor this much more, and I may be being pedantic...
It appears to read as if WS1 is about putting in place mechanisms that "provide the community with confidence" but not specifically about putting in place accountability mechanisms or measures. There is a big difference between putting in in place process mechanisms to provide confidence (as it now seems to imply) and putting in place actual accountability mechanisms which is what the original definition suggested. The second definition is fine for so long as it explicitly includes the first as well.
It might be better if it read something like:
Work Stream 1: is focused on mechanisms that 1) enhance ICANN's accountability and must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition, and 2) that provide the community with confidence that any accountability measures that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity.
Matthew
On 1/15/2015 10:40 AM, Jordan Carter wrote: I agree with Paul, Mathieu etc - the Charter language is the skeleton. The language proposed sets out to characterise why we would select items - i.e. why they have to be done before the transition.
We have to set out transparently the criteria we are using to decide what has to be in place. This language helps do that.
best Jordan
On 16 January 2015 at 04:17, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear All, I do not understand who agreed with whom What has been changed from the Charter. I personally fully agree with the following Quote " in the absence “mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability ( in relation with work stream 1 of CCWG ,for three distinct areas , Naming, Numbers and Protocols, including parameter ) could be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur." Unquote
Kavouss
2015-01-15 16:06 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <emorris@milk.toast.net>: +1
Paul has eloquently expressed my views in a manner far superior to anything I could write. Thanks.
One could argue that our current system of accountability and transparency (reconsideration, Appeal, CEP, IR, DIDP), with some tweaks, should actually be sufficient going forward. It looks great: on paper. The problem is that a system designed for redress (per Bruce) actually functions as a system of review (per Robin), and a rather cursory review system at that. We simply must have mechanisms designed to ensure that we have real systems of accountability, ones that does not rely on the good faith and open-mindedness of any particular Board or staff member or group, in place before the transition can be allowed to occur. -----Original Message----- From: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> To: "'Tijani BEN JEMAA'" <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>, <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:22:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition
Respetful disagreement. I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the “new” definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place. Put another way, I think that the exposition in WS1 precisely describes the commitments that MUST be made before a transition is allowed to occur. More importantly, I think there is growing consensus across the community that this is so. To state it affirmatively – in the absence “mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur.
Paul
**NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
From: Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition
Dear all,
I read again the new proposed definition of the Work Streams, and I found it too different from the one in our charter:
In the charter: · Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; · Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition
The new proposal: · Work Stream 1 mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. · All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board.
I don’t believe that we are allowed to change any part of the charter without going back to the chartering organizations and ask for their approval.
On the other hand, the separation of WS 1 and WS 2 was for the purpose of having the accountability mechanisms necessary before the transition done in time, and the new definition doesn’t satisfy this requirement
I would prefer stay with the charter definition for all those reasons
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability2 mailing list Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability2
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Good catch. +1 P **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key From: Matthew Shears [mailto:mshears@cdt.org] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 11:16 AM To: Jordan Carter; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ccwg-accountability3; ccwg-accountability2@icann.org; ianatransition@icann.org; ccwg-accountability1@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [Area 2] [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Not to belabor this much more, and I may be being pedantic... It appears to read as if WS1 is about putting in place mechanisms that "provide the community with confidence" but not specifically about putting in place accountability mechanisms or measures. There is a big difference between putting in in place process mechanisms to provide confidence (as it now seems to imply) and putting in place actual accountability mechanisms which is what the original definition suggested. The second definition is fine for so long as it explicitly includes the first as well. It might be better if it read something like: Work Stream 1: is focused on mechanisms that 1) enhance ICANN's accountability and must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition, and 2) that provide the community with confidence that any accountability measures that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. Matthew On 1/15/2015 10:40 AM, Jordan Carter wrote: I agree with Paul, Mathieu etc - the Charter language is the skeleton. The language proposed sets out to characterise why we would select items - i.e. why they have to be done before the transition. We have to set out transparently the criteria we are using to decide what has to be in place. This language helps do that. best Jordan On 16 January 2015 at 04:17, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear All, I do not understand who agreed with whom What has been changed from the Charter. I personally fully agree with the following Quote " in the absence mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability ( in relation with work stream 1 of CCWG ,for three distinct areas , Naming, Numbers and Protocols, including parameter ) could be implemented if it had consensus support from the community the IANA Functions transition should not occur." Unquote Kavouss 2015-01-15 16:06 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <emorris@milk.toast.net <mailto:emorris@milk.toast.net> >: +1 Paul has eloquently expressed my views in a manner far superior to anything I could write. Thanks. One could argue that our current system of accountability and transparency (reconsideration, Appeal, CEP, IR, DIDP), with some tweaks, should actually be sufficient going forward. It looks great: on paper. The problem is that a system designed for redress (per Bruce) actually functions as a system of review (per Robin), and a rather cursory review system at that. We simply must have mechanisms designed to ensure that we have real systems of accountability, ones that does not rely on the good faith and open-mindedness of any particular Board or staff member or group, in place before the transition can be allowed to occur. -----Original Message----- From: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > To: "'Tijani BEN JEMAA'" <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> >, <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:22:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Respetful disagreement. I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the new definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place. Put another way, I think that the exposition in WS1 precisely describes the commitments that MUST be made before a transition is allowed to occur. More importantly, I think there is growing consensus across the community that this is so. To state it affirmatively in the absence mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community the IANA Functions transition should not occur. Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> or paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key From: Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> ] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Dear all, I read again the new proposed definition of the Work Streams, and I found it too different from the one in our charter: In the charter: * Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; * Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition The new proposal: * Work Stream 1 mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. * All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board. I dont believe that we are allowed to change any part of the charter without going back to the chartering organizations and ask for their approval. On the other hand, the separation of WS 1 and WS 2 was for the purpose of having the accountability mechanisms necessary before the transition done in time, and the new definition doesnt satisfy this requirement I would prefer stay with the charter definition for all those reasons ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 <tel:%2B%20216%2070%20853%C2%A0376> 376 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- _____ <http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability2 mailing list Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability2 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears@cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org> + 44 771 247 2987
+1 to Matthew Shears for putting the original and the new version TOGETHER *Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez* _________ Apartado 1571-1000 *COSTA RICA* On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
Not to belabor this much more, and I may be being pedantic...
It appears to read as if WS1 is about putting in place mechanisms that "provide the community with confidence" but not specifically about putting in place accountability mechanisms or measures. There is a big difference between putting in in place process mechanisms to provide confidence (as it now seems to imply) and putting in place actual accountability mechanisms which is what the original definition suggested. The second definition is fine for so long as it explicitly includes the first as well.
It might be better if it read something like:
*Work Stream 1*: is focused on mechanisms that 1) enhance ICANN's accountability and must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition, and 2) that provide the community with confidence that any accountability measures that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity.
Matthew
On 1/15/2015 10:40 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
I agree with Paul, Mathieu etc - the Charter language is the skeleton. The language proposed sets out to characterise why we would select items - i.e. why they have to be done before the transition.
We have to set out transparently the criteria we are using to decide what has to be in place. This language helps do that.
best Jordan
On 16 January 2015 at 04:17, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, I do not understand who agreed with whom What has been changed from the Charter. I personally fully agree with the following Quote "* in the absence “**mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability ( in relation with work stream 1 of CCWG ,for three distinct areas , Naming, Numbers and Protocols, including parameter ) could be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur." * *Unquote*
*Kavouss *
2015-01-15 16:06 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <emorris@milk.toast.net>:
+1
Paul has eloquently expressed my views in a manner far superior to anything I could write. Thanks.
One could argue that our current system of accountability and transparency (reconsideration, Appeal, CEP, IR, DIDP), with some tweaks, should actually be sufficient going forward. It looks great: on paper. The problem is that a system designed for redress (per Bruce) actually functions as a system of review (per Robin), and a rather cursory review system at that. We simply must have mechanisms designed to ensure that we have real systems of accountability, ones that does not rely on the good faith and open-mindedness of any particular Board or staff member or group, in place before the transition can be allowed to occur.
-----Original Message----- From: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> To: "'Tijani BEN JEMAA'" <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>, < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:22:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition
Respetful disagreement. I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the “new” definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place. Put another way, I think that the exposition in WS1 precisely describes the commitments that MUST be made before a transition is allowed to occur. More importantly, I think there is growing consensus across the community that this is so. To state it affirmatively – in the absence “mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur.
Paul
***NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 **** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
*From:* Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn] *Sent:* Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition
Dear all,
I read again the new proposed definition of the Work Streams, and I found it too different from the one in our charter:
In the charter: · *Work Stream 1*: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; · *Work Stream 2*: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition
The new proposal: · *Work Stream 1* mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. · All other consensus items could be in *Work Stream 2*, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board.
I don’t believe that we are allowed to change any part of the charter without going back to the chartering organizations and ask for their approval.
On the other hand, the separation of WS 1 and WS 2 was for the purpose of having the accountability mechanisms necessary before the transition done in time, and the new definition doesn’t satisfy this requirement
I would prefer stay with the charter definition for all those reasons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Tijani BEN JEMAA * Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------ <http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability2 mailing list Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability2
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
*To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears@cdt.org+ 44 771 247 2987
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I agree as well. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jan 15, 2015, at 16:40, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
I agree with Paul, Mathieu etc - the Charter language is the skeleton. The language proposed sets out to characterise why we would select items - i.e. why they have to be done before the transition.
We have to set out transparently the criteria we are using to decide what has to be in place. This language helps do that.
best Jordan
On 16 January 2015 at 04:17, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear All, I do not understand who agreed with whom What has been changed from the Charter. I personally fully agree with the following Quote " in the absence “mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability ( in relation with work stream 1 of CCWG ,for three distinct areas , Naming, Numbers and Protocols, including parameter ) could be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur." Unquote
Kavouss
2015-01-15 16:06 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <emorris@milk.toast.net>:
+1
Paul has eloquently expressed my views in a manner far superior to anything I could write. Thanks.
One could argue that our current system of accountability and transparency (reconsideration, Appeal, CEP, IR, DIDP), with some tweaks, should actually be sufficient going forward. It looks great: on paper. The problem is that a system designed for redress (per Bruce) actually functions as a system of review (per Robin), and a rather cursory review system at that. We simply must have mechanisms designed to ensure that we have real systems of accountability, ones that does not rely on the good faith and open-mindedness of any particular Board or staff member or group, in place before the transition can be allowed to occur. -----Original Message----- From: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> To: "'Tijani BEN JEMAA'" <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>, <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:22:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition
Respetful disagreement. I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the “new” definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place. Put another way, I think that the exposition in WS1 precisely describes the commitments that MUST be made before a transition is allowed to occur. More importantly, I think there is growing consensus across the community that this is so. To state it affirmatively – in the absence “mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur.
Paul
**NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
From: Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition
Dear all,
I read again the new proposed definition of the Work Streams, and I found it too different from the one in our charter:
In the charter: · Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; · Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition
The new proposal: · Work Stream 1 mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. · All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board.
I don’t believe that we are allowed to change any part of the charter without going back to the chartering organizations and ask for their approval.
On the other hand, the separation of WS 1 and WS 2 was for the purpose of having the accountability mechanisms necessary before the transition done in time, and the new definition doesn’t satisfy this requirement
I would prefer stay with the charter definition for all those reasons
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability2 mailing list Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability2
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability3 mailing list Ccwg-accountability3@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability3
Dear Paul, Kavouss, Tijani, Mathieu, all, I think Paul’s „I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the “new” definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place.” clearly shows the difference between te charter’s version and the „elaborated” one: the latter narrows down on a specific group of mechanisms (that when in place or committed to would etc..). That can be good, if we agree. On the other side, it might exclude mechanisms that the charter version includes (mechanisms other than that when in place or committed to would etc..). To illustrate my point: a review mechanism that has to be in place before IANA stewardship transition is in scope with the charter phrasing, but does not "provide the community with assurance that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community.” It might look like a compromise, but it is not intended to be, how about: Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition, including mechanisms that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with assurance that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community. (even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity) I agree, it’s one terribly long sentence. I submit that we can leave out the bit I put in brackets, because the phrasing already correctly covers the „even if” situations implicitly. Cheers, Roelof From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Date: donderdag 15 januari 2015 15:22 To: 'Tijani BEN JEMAA' <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Respetful disagreement. I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the “new” definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place. Put another way, I think that the exposition in WS1 precisely describes the commitments that MUST be made before a transition is allowed to occur. More importantly, I think there is growing consensus across the community that this is so. To state it affirmatively – in the absence “mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur. Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> From: Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition Dear all, I read again the new proposed definition of the Work Streams, and I found it too different from the one in our charter: In the charter: · Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition; · Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition The new proposal: · Work Stream 1 mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. · All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board. I don’t believe that we are allowed to change any part of the charter without going back to the chartering organizations and ask for their approval. On the other hand, the separation of WS 1 and WS 2 was for the purpose of having the accountability mechanisms necessary before the transition done in time, and the new definition doesn’t satisfy this requirement I would prefer stay with the charter definition for all those reasons -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active.
+1 Matthew +1 Roelof even better *Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez* _________ Apartado 1571-1000 *COSTA RICA* On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
Dear Paul, Kavouss, Tijani, Mathieu, all,
I think Paul’s „*I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the “new” definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place.*” clearly shows the difference between te charter’s version and the „elaborated” one: the latter narrows down on a specific group of mechanisms (that when in place or committed to would etc..). That can be good, if we agree. On the other side, it might exclude mechanisms that the charter version includes (mechanisms *other* than that when in place or committed to would etc..). To illustrate my point: a review mechanism that has to be in place before IANA stewardship transition is in scope with the charter phrasing, but does not "*provide the community with assurance that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community.**”*
It might look like a compromise, but it is not intended to be, how about:
*Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition, including mechanisms that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with assurance that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community. (even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity)*
I agree, it’s one terribly long sentence. I submit that we can leave out the bit I put in brackets, because the phrasing already correctly covers the „even if” situations implicitly.
Cheers,
Roelof
From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Date: donderdag 15 januari 2015 15:22 To: 'Tijani BEN JEMAA' <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>, " accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition
Respetful disagreement. I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the “new” definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place. Put another way, I think that the exposition in WS1 precisely describes the commitments that MUST be made before a transition is allowed to occur. More importantly, I think there is growing consensus across the community that this is so. To state it affirmatively – in the absence “mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur.
Paul
***NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ****
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
*From:* Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>] *Sent:* Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition
Dear all,
I read again the new proposed definition of the Work Streams, and I found it too different from the one in our charter:
In the charter:
· *Work Stream 1*: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition;
· *Work Stream 2*: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition
The new proposal:
· *Work Stream 1* mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity.
· All other consensus items could be in *Work Stream 2*, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board.
I don’t believe that we are allowed to change any part of the charter without going back to the chartering organizations and ask for their approval.
On the other hand, the separation of WS 1 and WS 2 was for the purpose of having the accountability mechanisms necessary before the transition done in time, and the new definition doesn’t satisfy this requirement
I would prefer stay with the charter definition for all those reasons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Tijani BEN JEMAA*
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
Phone: + 216 41 649 605
Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
Fax: + 216 70 853 376
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (13)
-
Burr, Becky -
Carlos Raul -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Drazek, Keith -
Edward Morris -
Fares, David -
Jordan Carter -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Matthew Shears -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Robin Gross -
Roelof Meijer -
Thomas Rickert