Where do we stand? (Was Re: Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin)
Dear Co-Chairs, FWIW, I think at this point, it will be good to have an understanding of where we are heading from the Co-Chairs. In some discussions it seem we have understood and agreed that a model that implies a structural change is impractical during this transition phase hence the suggestion made by Steve. Yet in other discussions it seem we are going ahead with the structural change model irrespective of the concerns raised from parts of the community and board. In other to prepare towards Dublin and contribute in a meaningful way, I think a summary of where we are presently and what is expected to be achieved in Dublin will be helpful. I apologise if this has already been shared, and in that case a pointer will be appreciated. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 10 Oct 2015 19:37, "Stephen Deerhake" <sdeerhake@nic.as> wrote:
Paul,
Perhaps the Board chair is articulating a minority viewpoint? Afterall, the Board will have to vote on the matter of sending/not sending the output of the CCWG on to NTIA.
Stephen Deerhake
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:05 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
With respect Bruce, I share Anne's view that this is not accurate. The Board chair has stated unequivocally that the Board will not submit a Membership based proposal. That is contrary to the statement that the Board will submit any proposal it receives from the CCWG "as is." That is categorically ruling out one type of "as is" proposal.
If you are seriously telling me that even after all this back and forth the Board actually would submit a "Membership only" based proposal to the NTIA then I would respectfully say that the Board has done a very poor job of communicating.
So ... answer this question please as directly as you are willing: If, today, the CCWG having considered but declined to accept the Board's input were to submit a proposal based upon a Membership organization would the Board transmit it to the NTIA as the ICANN proposal?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:03 PM To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
Hello Paul,
Regarding:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
The statement still holds.
The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has stated all along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait for a final proposal to raise any concerns.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
^ +1 Thanks for the question, Seun. This would be very helpful in preparation for Dublin, and for an informed discussion there. Warm regards, Aarti On 11 October 2015 at 00:23, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
FWIW, I think at this point, it will be good to have an understanding of where we are heading from the Co-Chairs. In some discussions it seem we have understood and agreed that a model that implies a structural change is impractical during this transition phase hence the suggestion made by Steve.
Yet in other discussions it seem we are going ahead with the structural change model irrespective of the concerns raised from parts of the community and board.
In other to prepare towards Dublin and contribute in a meaningful way, I think a summary of where we are presently and what is expected to be achieved in Dublin will be helpful. I apologise if this has already been shared, and in that case a pointer will be appreciated.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 10 Oct 2015 19:37, "Stephen Deerhake" <sdeerhake@nic.as> wrote:
Paul,
Perhaps the Board chair is articulating a minority viewpoint? Afterall, the Board will have to vote on the matter of sending/not sending the output of the CCWG on to NTIA.
Stephen Deerhake
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:05 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
With respect Bruce, I share Anne's view that this is not accurate. The Board chair has stated unequivocally that the Board will not submit a Membership based proposal. That is contrary to the statement that the Board will submit any proposal it receives from the CCWG "as is." That is categorically ruling out one type of "as is" proposal.
If you are seriously telling me that even after all this back and forth the Board actually would submit a "Membership only" based proposal to the NTIA then I would respectfully say that the Board has done a very poor job of communicating.
So ... answer this question please as directly as you are willing: If, today, the CCWG having considered but declined to accept the Board's input were to submit a proposal based upon a Membership organization would the Board transmit it to the NTIA as the ICANN proposal?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:03 PM To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
Hello Paul,
Regarding:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
The statement still holds.
The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has stated all along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait for a final proposal to raise any concerns.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Aarti Bhavana | Research Fellow Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 965-464-6846 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.ccgtlr.org <http://www.ccgdelhi.org/> . www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi <https://twitter.com/CCGDelhi> . @aartibhavana <https://twitter.com/aartibhavana>
Hi, (I know this was addressed to the co-chairs and i am not one, yet I presume to have an opinion on the subject) As far as I understood we are, in parallel: a. analyzing and trying to respond to the comments, including those by the Board, made about defects in explanation and design in the SM model of Draft 2 b. analyzing the MEM counter proposal made by the Board I disagree with your claim that working on the SM model is impractical. It is still the model that responds to the largest number of community concerns and best meets the CWG requirements. The suggestion by Steve D. is just that, a suggestion. I do not believe that there is a consensus in the group, at least not yet, about taking that path. Many, myself among them, have argued that we are not comfortable with putting off the major accountability changes that are required by the loss of NTIA. Yes, we need to prune and make sure that the changes we work on are necessary for WS1, but given the uncertainties about the post transition and any possible WS2, we must make sure that the WS1 solution is sufficient. avri On 10-Oct-15 14:53, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
FWIW, I think at this point, it will be good to have an understanding of where we are heading from the Co-Chairs. In some discussions it seem we have understood and agreed that a model that implies a structural change is impractical during this transition phase hence the suggestion made by Steve.
Yet in other discussions it seem we are going ahead with the structural change model irrespective of the concerns raised from parts of the community and board.
In other to prepare towards Dublin and contribute in a meaningful way, I think a summary of where we are presently and what is expected to be achieved in Dublin will be helpful. I apologise if this has already been shared, and in that case a pointer will be appreciated.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 10 Oct 2015 19:37, "Stephen Deerhake" <sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>> wrote:
Paul,
Perhaps the Board chair is articulating a minority viewpoint? Afterall, the Board will have to vote on the matter of sending/not sending the output of the CCWG on to NTIA.
Stephen Deerhake
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:05 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>; 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
With respect Bruce, I share Anne's view that this is not accurate. The Board chair has stated unequivocally that the Board will not submit a Membership based proposal. That is contrary to the statement that the Board will submit any proposal it receives from the CCWG "as is." That is categorically ruling out one type of "as is" proposal.
If you are seriously telling me that even after all this back and forth the Board actually would submit a "Membership only" based proposal to the NTIA then I would respectfully say that the Board has done a very poor job of communicating.
So ... answer this question please as directly as you are willing: If, today, the CCWG having considered but declined to accept the Board's input were to submit a proposal based upon a Membership organization would the Board transmit it to the NTIA as the ICANN proposal?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto: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> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>] Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:03 PM To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
Hello Paul,
Regarding:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
The statement still holds.
The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has stated all along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait for a final proposal to raise any concerns.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
+1
On Oct 10, 2015, at 3:32 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
(I know this was addressed to the co-chairs and i am not one, yet I presume to have an opinion on the subject)
As far as I understood we are, in parallel:
a. analyzing and trying to respond to the comments, including those by the Board, made about defects in explanation and design in the SM model of Draft 2 b. analyzing the MEM counter proposal made by the Board
I disagree with your claim that working on the SM model is impractical. It is still the model that responds to the largest number of community concerns and best meets the CWG requirements.
The suggestion by Steve D. is just that, a suggestion. I do not believe that there is a consensus in the group, at least not yet, about taking that path. Many, myself among them, have argued that we are not comfortable with putting off the major accountability changes that are required by the loss of NTIA. Yes, we need to prune and make sure that the changes we work on are necessary for WS1, but given the uncertainties about the post transition and any possible WS2, we must make sure that the WS1 solution is sufficient.
avri
On 10-Oct-15 14:53, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
FWIW, I think at this point, it will be good to have an understanding of where we are heading from the Co-Chairs. In some discussions it seem we have understood and agreed that a model that implies a structural change is impractical during this transition phase hence the suggestion made by Steve.
Yet in other discussions it seem we are going ahead with the structural change model irrespective of the concerns raised from parts of the community and board.
In other to prepare towards Dublin and contribute in a meaningful way, I think a summary of where we are presently and what is expected to be achieved in Dublin will be helpful. I apologise if this has already been shared, and in that case a pointer will be appreciated.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 10 Oct 2015 19:37, "Stephen Deerhake" <sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>> wrote:
Paul,
Perhaps the Board chair is articulating a minority viewpoint? Afterall, the Board will have to vote on the matter of sending/not sending the output of the CCWG on to NTIA.
Stephen Deerhake
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:05 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>; 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
With respect Bruce, I share Anne's view that this is not accurate. The Board chair has stated unequivocally that the Board will not submit a Membership based proposal. That is contrary to the statement that the Board will submit any proposal it receives from the CCWG "as is." That is categorically ruling out one type of "as is" proposal.
If you are seriously telling me that even after all this back and forth the Board actually would submit a "Membership only" based proposal to the NTIA then I would respectfully say that the Board has done a very poor job of communicating.
So ... answer this question please as directly as you are willing: If, today, the CCWG having considered but declined to accept the Board's input were to submit a proposal based upon a Membership organization would the Board transmit it to the NTIA as the ICANN proposal?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto: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> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>] Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:03 PM To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
Hello Paul,
Regarding:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
The statement still holds.
The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has stated all along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait for a final proposal to raise any concerns.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Avri, Thanks for your response, I will not really attempt to address your view so this does not distract from the essence of starting this thread. I think we have quite a number of differing individual opinion and it gets so high at times that we miss the directions from the Co-Chairs. I will really appreciate that the Co-Chairs specifically provide response to this question so we have an idea of what page we are officially at in this process. Regards PS: Co-Chairs may also just put a stamp on what Avri has said if that's their understanding as well. Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 10 Oct 2015 20:32, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
(I know this was addressed to the co-chairs and i am not one, yet I presume to have an opinion on the subject)
As far as I understood we are, in parallel:
a. analyzing and trying to respond to the comments, including those by the Board, made about defects in explanation and design in the SM model of Draft 2 b. analyzing the MEM counter proposal made by the Board
I disagree with your claim that working on the SM model is impractical. It is still the model that responds to the largest number of community concerns and best meets the CWG requirements.
The suggestion by Steve D. is just that, a suggestion. I do not believe that there is a consensus in the group, at least not yet, about taking that path. Many, myself among them, have argued that we are not comfortable with putting off the major accountability changes that are required by the loss of NTIA. Yes, we need to prune and make sure that the changes we work on are necessary for WS1, but given the uncertainties about the post transition and any possible WS2, we must make sure that the WS1 solution is sufficient.
avri
On 10-Oct-15 14:53, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
FWIW, I think at this point, it will be good to have an understanding of where we are heading from the Co-Chairs. In some discussions it seem we have understood and agreed that a model that implies a structural change is impractical during this transition phase hence the suggestion made by Steve.
Yet in other discussions it seem we are going ahead with the structural change model irrespective of the concerns raised from parts of the community and board.
In other to prepare towards Dublin and contribute in a meaningful way, I think a summary of where we are presently and what is expected to be achieved in Dublin will be helpful. I apologise if this has already been shared, and in that case a pointer will be appreciated.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 10 Oct 2015 19:37, "Stephen Deerhake" <sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>> wrote:
Paul,
Perhaps the Board chair is articulating a minority viewpoint? Afterall, the Board will have to vote on the matter of sending/not sending the output of the CCWG on to NTIA.
Stephen Deerhake
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:05 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>; 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
With respect Bruce, I share Anne's view that this is not accurate. The Board chair has stated unequivocally that the Board will not submit a Membership based proposal. That is contrary to the statement that the Board will submit any proposal it receives from the CCWG "as is." That is categorically ruling out one type of "as is" proposal.
If you are seriously telling me that even after all this back and forth the Board actually would submit a "Membership only" based proposal to the NTIA then I would respectfully say that the Board has done a very poor job of communicating.
So ... answer this question please as directly as you are willing: If, today, the CCWG having considered but declined to accept the Board's input were to submit a proposal based upon a Membership organization would the Board transmit it to the NTIA as the ICANN proposal?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto: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> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>] Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:03 PM To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
Hello Paul,
Regarding:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
The statement still holds.
The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has stated all along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait for a final proposal to raise any concerns.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co -Chairs Perhaps it is the time that you make a sum up of all these contradictory statements and provide the status of discussions. Expectant your reaction, I remain . Kavouss Now Questions to To Bruce or Chairman of the Board I formally request you or the chairman of the Board to clearly provide the position of the Board taking into account apparent discrepancies between the statements and testimony already made since the creation of CCWG. The Board needs to explicitly and clearly reply to the following questions 1. Question 1, Irrespective of previous statements and or testimony, does the Board accept or reject the CMSM as it is on 11 October 2015? 2. Question 2, Irrespective of previous statements and or testimony, does the Board accept or Reject the Sole Designator Model? 3. Question 3 Under the MEM, how the MEM Issue Group functions? Does it need to form an Unincorporated Association among the members of the Group? 4. Question 4, At what Occasion/Time or under what circumstances the MEM Issue Group will be established 5. Question 5 Who are the members of the MEM Issue Group? 6. Question 6 Is there a quorum for the MEM Issue Group? 6.1 What are the criteria for that Quorum? 6.2 If the quorum is met, then how the decision will be made? 6.2.1 By adoption of a resolution on consensus basis? Please confirm; or 6.2.2 By Voting of SOs ACs; Pleases confirm 7. Question 7 What happens if the Quorum is not reached? 7.1 The case is dead? Then the community power is not implemtable? 7.2 Then what after? 8. Question 8 How the SOs and ACs conclude on a given petition? 8.1 By adoption of a resolution on consensus basis? Please confirm; or 8.2 By Voting in SOs and Consensus in ACs ; Pleases confirm 9. Question 9 In case that the members of the Issue MEM Group are chairs of the SOs and ACs 9.1 What is the fiduciary and accountability status of each of those chairs of SOs and ACs? 9.2 What happens, if one or more chairs refrain to take the required action on proceeding with Binding arbitration, IN case the Unincorporated Association is not established and thus individual So and AC leaders has to / forced to individually file an arbitration ? 9.3 How many SO /AC leaders are required to initiate to file an arbitration? Or one is sufficient? 9.4 In the latter case ,what would be the status of the arbitration if only supported 7 initiated by one SO /AC while other SOs and ACs refrain from initiation? 10. Question 10 101. What is the relation between Mem Issue Group and Standing Panel? 10.2 What is the relation between Standing Panel and IRP? 103. Which subjects are submitted to Standing Panel and which subject are submitted to IRP 11. Question 11 Should the outcome from MEM Issue Group be on consensus basis ,why mem requires that the decision should be valid unless there is one advice from an AC against it ? Doesn’t it mean that one AC consensus advice is sufficient to kill the outcome? Doesn’t it mean by having one AC consensus advice against the issue and vetoing the case that AC alone will capture the entire MEN Issue Group? 12. Question 12 If all those questions are satisfactorily replied, is there any guarantee that the CWG requirements to implement PTI process would are fully met ? Kavouss 2015-10-11 6:47 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Hello Avri,
Thanks for your response, I will not really attempt to address your view so this does not distract from the essence of starting this thread.
I think we have quite a number of differing individual opinion and it gets so high at times that we miss the directions from the Co-Chairs.
I will really appreciate that the Co-Chairs specifically provide response to this question so we have an idea of what page we are officially at in this process.
Regards PS: Co-Chairs may also just put a stamp on what Avri has said if that's their understanding as well. Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 10 Oct 2015 20:32, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
(I know this was addressed to the co-chairs and i am not one, yet I presume to have an opinion on the subject)
As far as I understood we are, in parallel:
a. analyzing and trying to respond to the comments, including those by the Board, made about defects in explanation and design in the SM model of Draft 2 b. analyzing the MEM counter proposal made by the Board
I disagree with your claim that working on the SM model is impractical. It is still the model that responds to the largest number of community concerns and best meets the CWG requirements.
The suggestion by Steve D. is just that, a suggestion. I do not believe that there is a consensus in the group, at least not yet, about taking that path. Many, myself among them, have argued that we are not comfortable with putting off the major accountability changes that are required by the loss of NTIA. Yes, we need to prune and make sure that the changes we work on are necessary for WS1, but given the uncertainties about the post transition and any possible WS2, we must make sure that the WS1 solution is sufficient.
avri
On 10-Oct-15 14:53, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
FWIW, I think at this point, it will be good to have an understanding of where we are heading from the Co-Chairs. In some discussions it seem we have understood and agreed that a model that implies a structural change is impractical during this transition phase hence the suggestion made by Steve.
Yet in other discussions it seem we are going ahead with the structural change model irrespective of the concerns raised from parts of the community and board.
In other to prepare towards Dublin and contribute in a meaningful way, I think a summary of where we are presently and what is expected to be achieved in Dublin will be helpful. I apologise if this has already been shared, and in that case a pointer will be appreciated.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 10 Oct 2015 19:37, "Stephen Deerhake" <sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>> wrote:
Paul,
Perhaps the Board chair is articulating a minority viewpoint? Afterall, the Board will have to vote on the matter of sending/not sending the output of the CCWG on to NTIA.
Stephen Deerhake
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:05 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>; 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
With respect Bruce, I share Anne's view that this is not accurate. The Board chair has stated unequivocally that the Board will not submit
a
Membership based proposal. That is contrary to the statement that the Board will submit any proposal it receives from the CCWG "as is." That is categorically ruling out one type of "as is" proposal.
If you are seriously telling me that even after all this back and forth the Board actually would submit a "Membership only" based proposal to the NTIA then I would respectfully say that the Board has done a very poor job of communicating.
So ... answer this question please as directly as you are willing: If, today, the CCWG having considered but declined to accept the Board's input were to submit a proposal based upon a Membership organization would the Board transmit it to the NTIA as the ICANN proposal?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto: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> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>] Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:03 PM To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
Hello Paul,
Regarding:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
The statement still holds.
The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has stated all along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait for a final proposal to raise any concerns.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1
hi, I appreciate that my view has no currency with you. And while I, too, am always happy to hear how our chairs interpret the consensus or lack of consensus, which they believe we have reached, I would argue that it is the CCWG, or perhaps the CCWG members - we may be getting to that point (I am not a member), that determine where we are. The co-chairs read the signs, tell us where they think we are and we (or maybe the members) let them know if they got it right. Or at least that is how I thought it worked. avri On 11-Oct-15 00:47, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Avri,
Thanks for your response, I will not really attempt to address your view so this does not distract from the essence of starting this thread.
I think we have quite a number of differing individual opinion and it gets so high at times that we miss the directions from the Co-Chairs.
I will really appreciate that the Co-Chairs specifically provide response to this question so we have an idea of what page we are officially at in this process.
Regards PS: Co-Chairs may also just put a stamp on what Avri has said if that's their understanding as well. Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 10 Oct 2015 20:32, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
(I know this was addressed to the co-chairs and i am not one, yet I presume to have an opinion on the subject)
As far as I understood we are, in parallel:
a. analyzing and trying to respond to the comments, including those by the Board, made about defects in explanation and design in the SM model of Draft 2 b. analyzing the MEM counter proposal made by the Board
I disagree with your claim that working on the SM model is impractical. It is still the model that responds to the largest number of community concerns and best meets the CWG requirements.
The suggestion by Steve D. is just that, a suggestion. I do not believe that there is a consensus in the group, at least not yet, about taking that path. Many, myself among them, have argued that we are not comfortable with putting off the major accountability changes that are required by the loss of NTIA. Yes, we need to prune and make sure that the changes we work on are necessary for WS1, but given the uncertainties about the post transition and any possible WS2, we must make sure that the WS1 solution is sufficient.
avri
On 10-Oct-15 14:53, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Dear Co-Chairs, > > FWIW, I think at this point, it will be good to have an understanding > of where we are heading from the Co-Chairs. In some discussions it > seem we have understood and agreed that a model that implies a > structural change is impractical during this transition phase hence > the suggestion made by Steve. > > Yet in other discussions it seem we are going ahead with the > structural change model irrespective of the concerns raised from parts > of the community and board. > > In other to prepare towards Dublin and contribute in a meaningful way, > I think a summary of where we are presently and what is expected to be > achieved in Dublin will be helpful. I apologise if this has already > been shared, and in that case a pointer will be appreciated. > > Regards > > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 10 Oct 2015 19:37, "Stephen Deerhake" <sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> > <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>>> wrote: > > Paul, > > Perhaps the Board chair is articulating a minority viewpoint? > Afterall, the > Board will have to vote on the matter of sending/not sending the > output of > the CCWG on to NTIA. > > Stephen Deerhake > > -----Original Message----- > From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>] On > Behalf Of Paul > Rosenzweig > Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:05 AM > To: 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> > <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>>; 'Accountability Cross > Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work > headed to > Dublin > > With respect Bruce, I share Anne's view that this is not > accurate. The > Board chair has stated unequivocally that the Board will not submit a > Membership based proposal. That is contrary to the statement that > the Board > will submit any proposal it receives from the CCWG "as is." That is > categorically ruling out one type of "as is" proposal. > > If you are seriously telling me that even after all this back and > forth the > Board actually would submit a "Membership only" based proposal to > the NTIA > then I would respectfully say that the Board has done a very poor > job of > communicating. > > So ... answer this question please as directly as you are > willing: If, > today, the CCWG having considered but declined to accept the > Board's input > were to submit a proposal based upon a Membership organization > would the > Board transmit it to the NTIA as the ICANN proposal? > > Paul > > Paul Rosenzweig > paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> > Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 > Link to my PGP Key > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> > <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>] > Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:03 PM > To: 'Accountability Cross Community' > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work > headed to > Dublin > > Hello Paul, > > Regarding: > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en > > The statement still holds. > > The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has > stated all > along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait > for a > final proposal to raise any concerns. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
+1 Avri On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
hi,
I appreciate that my view has no currency with you.
And while I, too, am always happy to hear how our chairs interpret the consensus or lack of consensus, which they believe we have reached, I would argue that it is the CCWG, or perhaps the CCWG members - we may be getting to that point (I am not a member), that determine where we are. The co-chairs read the signs, tell us where they think we are and we (or maybe the members) let them know if they got it right.
Or at least that is how I thought it worked.
avri
On 11-Oct-15 00:47, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Avri,
Thanks for your response, I will not really attempt to address your view so this does not distract from the essence of starting this thread.
I think we have quite a number of differing individual opinion and it gets so high at times that we miss the directions from the Co-Chairs.
I will really appreciate that the Co-Chairs specifically provide response to this question so we have an idea of what page we are officially at in this process.
Regards PS: Co-Chairs may also just put a stamp on what Avri has said if that's their understanding as well. Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 10 Oct 2015 20:32, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
(I know this was addressed to the co-chairs and i am not one, yet I presume to have an opinion on the subject)
As far as I understood we are, in parallel:
a. analyzing and trying to respond to the comments, including those by the Board, made about defects in explanation and design in the SM model of Draft 2 b. analyzing the MEM counter proposal made by the Board
I disagree with your claim that working on the SM model is impractical. It is still the model that responds to the largest number of
community
concerns and best meets the CWG requirements.
The suggestion by Steve D. is just that, a suggestion. I do not believe that there is a consensus in the group, at least not yet, about
taking
that path. Many, myself among them, have argued that we are not comfortable with putting off the major accountability changes that
are
required by the loss of NTIA. Yes, we need to prune and make sure
that
the changes we work on are necessary for WS1, but given the uncertainties about the post transition and any possible WS2, we must make sure that the WS1 solution is sufficient.
avri
On 10-Oct-15 14:53, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Dear Co-Chairs, > > FWIW, I think at this point, it will be good to have an understanding > of where we are heading from the Co-Chairs. In some discussions it > seem we have understood and agreed that a model that implies a > structural change is impractical during this transition phase hence > the suggestion made by Steve. > > Yet in other discussions it seem we are going ahead with the > structural change model irrespective of the concerns raised from parts > of the community and board. > > In other to prepare towards Dublin and contribute in a meaningful way, > I think a summary of where we are presently and what is expected to be > achieved in Dublin will be helpful. I apologise if this has already > been shared, and in that case a pointer will be appreciated. > > Regards > > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 10 Oct 2015 19:37, "Stephen Deerhake" <sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> > <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>>> wrote: > > Paul, > > Perhaps the Board chair is articulating a minority viewpoint? > Afterall, the > Board will have to vote on the matter of sending/not sending
the
> output of > the CCWG on to NTIA. > > Stephen Deerhake > > -----Original Message----- > From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>] On > Behalf Of Paul > Rosenzweig > Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:05 AM > To: 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> > <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>>; 'Accountability Cross > Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work > headed to > Dublin > > With respect Bruce, I share Anne's view that this is not > accurate. The > Board chair has stated unequivocally that the Board will not submit a > Membership based proposal. That is contrary to the statement that > the Board > will submit any proposal it receives from the CCWG "as is." That is > categorically ruling out one type of "as is" proposal. > > If you are seriously telling me that even after all this back and > forth the > Board actually would submit a "Membership only" based proposal to > the NTIA > then I would respectfully say that the Board has done a very poor > job of > communicating. > > So ... answer this question please as directly as you are > willing: If, > today, the CCWG having considered but declined to accept the > Board's input > were to submit a proposal based upon a Membership organization > would the > Board transmit it to the NTIA as the ICANN proposal? > > Paul > > Paul Rosenzweig > paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> > Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 > Link to my PGP Key > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> > <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>] > Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:03 PM > To: 'Accountability Cross Community' > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work > headed to > Dublin > > Hello Paul, > > Regarding: > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en > > The statement still holds. > > The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and
has
> stated all > along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait > for a > final proposal to raise any concerns. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> >
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> >
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> >
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- *Evang. Akinbo A. A. Cornerstone, Nigeria.* +2348064464545, +2348089118151 | 2BAC511D. www.akinbo.ng *Co-Founder,* My Nigeria Online (MyNOL) www.mynol.org.ng <http://www.mynol.org/> | @mynol1 *Member, Executive Board of Directors*, Nigeria Internet Registration Association (NiRA) www.nira.org.ng | akinbo@nira.org.ng <akinbo@yips.org.ng> @niraworks *National Convener,* Nigerian Youth Coalition on Internet Governance (NG-YCIG) www.ycig.org.ng <http://www.nira.org.ng/> *President,* Young Internet Professionals (YiPS) www.yips.gnbo.com.ng <http://wwwyips.org.ng/> | akinbo@yips.org.ng *The RedHub.* 12, Afonka Odebunmi Street, Lagos State. http://www.theredhub.org/ *National Focal Point ( Nigeria ) 2009-2011.* Global Youth Coalition on HIV/AIDS (a program of TakingITGlobal) www.youthaidscoalition.org www.takingitglobal.com www.iaids.org About me: http://profiles.tigweb.org/pscornerstone
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 11 Oct 2015 15:10, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
. The co-chairs read the signs, tell us where they think we are and we (or maybe the members) let them know if they got it right.
SO: Your statement above is consistent with what I have in mind when I pose the question; It's important to hear what the Co-Chairs are observing so we can be clear on what we already have consensus on, what is pending and their suggested approach on how to arrive at a workable solution that is roughly acceptable. We have written so much, occasional observation(interpretation) of what has been discussed from Co-Chairs is important. We are heading into Dublin and I think it's important to have a clear idea of items we expect to completely resolve during the face2face.
Or at least that is how I thought it worked.
SO: I believe we are in agreement of how it works. I have the privilege of chairing within other organisations as well so I believe I have an idea of the role of Co-Chairs. Regards
avri
On 11-Oct-15 00:47, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Avri,
Thanks for your response, I will not really attempt to address your view so this does not distract from the essence of starting this thread.
I think we have quite a number of differing individual opinion and it gets so high at times that we miss the directions from the Co-Chairs.
I will really appreciate that the Co-Chairs specifically provide response to this question so we have an idea of what page we are officially at in this process.
Regards PS: Co-Chairs may also just put a stamp on what Avri has said if that's their understanding as well. Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 10 Oct 2015 20:32, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
(I know this was addressed to the co-chairs and i am not one, yet I presume to have an opinion on the subject)
As far as I understood we are, in parallel:
a. analyzing and trying to respond to the comments, including those by the Board, made about defects in explanation and design in the SM model of Draft 2 b. analyzing the MEM counter proposal made by the Board
I disagree with your claim that working on the SM model is impractical. It is still the model that responds to the largest number of
community
concerns and best meets the CWG requirements.
The suggestion by Steve D. is just that, a suggestion. I do not believe that there is a consensus in the group, at least not yet, about
taking
that path. Many, myself among them, have argued that we are not comfortable with putting off the major accountability changes that
are
required by the loss of NTIA. Yes, we need to prune and make sure
that
the changes we work on are necessary for WS1, but given the uncertainties about the post transition and any possible WS2, we
must
make sure that the WS1 solution is sufficient.
avri
On 10-Oct-15 14:53, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Dear Co-Chairs, > > FWIW, I think at this point, it will be good to have an understanding > of where we are heading from the Co-Chairs. In some discussions it > seem we have understood and agreed that a model that implies a > structural change is impractical during this transition phase
hence
> the suggestion made by Steve. > > Yet in other discussions it seem we are going ahead with the > structural change model irrespective of the concerns raised from parts > of the community and board. > > In other to prepare towards Dublin and contribute in a meaningful way, > I think a summary of where we are presently and what is expected to be > achieved in Dublin will be helpful. I apologise if this has
already
> been shared, and in that case a pointer will be appreciated. > > Regards > > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 10 Oct 2015 19:37, "Stephen Deerhake" <sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> > <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>>> wrote: > > Paul, > > Perhaps the Board chair is articulating a minority viewpoint? > Afterall, the > Board will have to vote on the matter of sending/not sending
the
> output of > the CCWG on to NTIA. > > Stephen Deerhake > > -----Original Message----- > From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>] On > Behalf Of Paul > Rosenzweig > Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:05 AM > To: 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> > <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>>; 'Accountability Cross > Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work > headed to > Dublin > > With respect Bruce, I share Anne's view that this is not > accurate. The > Board chair has stated unequivocally that the Board will not submit a > Membership based proposal. That is contrary to the statement that > the Board > will submit any proposal it receives from the CCWG "as is." That is > categorically ruling out one type of "as is" proposal. > > If you are seriously telling me that even after all this back and > forth the > Board actually would submit a "Membership only" based proposal to > the NTIA > then I would respectfully say that the Board has done a very poor > job of > communicating. > > So ... answer this question please as directly as you are > willing: If, > today, the CCWG having considered but declined to accept the > Board's input > were to submit a proposal based upon a Membership organization > would the > Board transmit it to the NTIA as the ICANN proposal? > > Paul > > Paul Rosenzweig > paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> > Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 > Link to my PGP Key > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> > <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>] > Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:03 PM > To: 'Accountability Cross Community' > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work > headed to > Dublin > > Hello Paul, > > Regarding: > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en > > The statement still holds. > > The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and
has
> stated all > along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait > for a > final proposal to raise any concerns. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> >
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> >
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> >
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thank you Avri! Well said. Carlos Raúl On Oct 10, 2015 1:33 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
(I know this was addressed to the co-chairs and i am not one, yet I presume to have an opinion on the subject)
As far as I understood we are, in parallel:
a. analyzing and trying to respond to the comments, including those by the Board, made about defects in explanation and design in the SM model of Draft 2 b. analyzing the MEM counter proposal made by the Board
I disagree with your claim that working on the SM model is impractical. It is still the model that responds to the largest number of community concerns and best meets the CWG requirements.
The suggestion by Steve D. is just that, a suggestion. I do not believe that there is a consensus in the group, at least not yet, about taking that path. Many, myself among them, have argued that we are not comfortable with putting off the major accountability changes that are required by the loss of NTIA. Yes, we need to prune and make sure that the changes we work on are necessary for WS1, but given the uncertainties about the post transition and any possible WS2, we must make sure that the WS1 solution is sufficient.
avri
On 10-Oct-15 14:53, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
FWIW, I think at this point, it will be good to have an understanding of where we are heading from the Co-Chairs. In some discussions it seem we have understood and agreed that a model that implies a structural change is impractical during this transition phase hence the suggestion made by Steve.
Yet in other discussions it seem we are going ahead with the structural change model irrespective of the concerns raised from parts of the community and board.
In other to prepare towards Dublin and contribute in a meaningful way, I think a summary of where we are presently and what is expected to be achieved in Dublin will be helpful. I apologise if this has already been shared, and in that case a pointer will be appreciated.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 10 Oct 2015 19:37, "Stephen Deerhake" <sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>> wrote:
Paul,
Perhaps the Board chair is articulating a minority viewpoint? Afterall, the Board will have to vote on the matter of sending/not sending the output of the CCWG on to NTIA.
Stephen Deerhake
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:05 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>; 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
With respect Bruce, I share Anne's view that this is not accurate. The Board chair has stated unequivocally that the Board will not submit a Membership based proposal. That is contrary to the statement that the Board will submit any proposal it receives from the CCWG "as is." That is categorically ruling out one type of "as is" proposal.
If you are seriously telling me that even after all this back and forth the Board actually would submit a "Membership only" based proposal to the NTIA then I would respectfully say that the Board has done a very poor job of communicating.
So ... answer this question please as directly as you are willing: If, today, the CCWG having considered but declined to accept the Board's input were to submit a proposal based upon a Membership organization would the Board transmit it to the NTIA as the ICANN proposal?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto: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> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>] Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:03 PM To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
Hello Paul,
Regarding:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
The statement still holds.
The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has stated all along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait for a final proposal to raise any concerns.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Seun, all, This request for a summary of where we stand is well understood, and perfectly appropriate at this point. Our plan is to provide such a quick summary before Dublin. Until then, you can refer to : - the summary we provided during last week ccwg call (available in recording or through the notes) - the slides that I shared in my email "update from Brussels", which I used to update the centr meeting. Feedback regarding our summaries is and will be welcome of course. Many thanks to those, especially Avri, who provided detailed inputs to that request as well. Best, Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
Le 10 oct. 2015 à 20:54, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> a écrit :
Dear Co-Chairs,
FWIW, I think at this point, it will be good to have an understanding of where we are heading from the Co-Chairs. In some discussions it seem we have understood and agreed that a model that implies a structural change is impractical during this transition phase hence the suggestion made by Steve.
Yet in other discussions it seem we are going ahead with the structural change model irrespective of the concerns raised from parts of the community and board.
In other to prepare towards Dublin and contribute in a meaningful way, I think a summary of where we are presently and what is expected to be achieved in Dublin will be helpful. I apologise if this has already been shared, and in that case a pointer will be appreciated.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 10 Oct 2015 19:37, "Stephen Deerhake" <sdeerhake@nic.as> wrote: Paul,
Perhaps the Board chair is articulating a minority viewpoint? Afterall, the Board will have to vote on the matter of sending/not sending the output of the CCWG on to NTIA.
Stephen Deerhake
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:05 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
With respect Bruce, I share Anne's view that this is not accurate. The Board chair has stated unequivocally that the Board will not submit a Membership based proposal. That is contrary to the statement that the Board will submit any proposal it receives from the CCWG "as is." That is categorically ruling out one type of "as is" proposal.
If you are seriously telling me that even after all this back and forth the Board actually would submit a "Membership only" based proposal to the NTIA then I would respectfully say that the Board has done a very poor job of communicating.
So ... answer this question please as directly as you are willing: If, today, the CCWG having considered but declined to accept the Board's input were to submit a proposal based upon a Membership organization would the Board transmit it to the NTIA as the ICANN proposal?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:03 PM To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
Hello Paul,
Regarding:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
The statement still holds.
The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has stated all along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait for a final proposal to raise any concerns.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I look forward to the Co-Chairs' summary. I feel the need to reject the following statement by Seun as baseless and inaccurate: In some discussions it seem we have understood and agreed that a model
that implies a structural change is impractical during this transition phase hence the suggestion made by Steve [DelBianco] .
I understand that some (including Seun) feel this way. But there is no basis for saying "we have ... agreed" with this statement. Of course, I may be reading the statement incorrectly; I am assuming that "we" refers to the CCWG (or the the CCWG Members, of which I am not one, but who in any event should be guided by their stakeholder organizations). If "we" refers to some other group (such as those who agree with the statement) then maybe it is accurate. Otherwise, no way. I find that the surest way *not* to come to an agreement is to pretend it has already been reached. It tend to inflame, rather than convince, those who disagree or who are weighing their position. Finally, a general "+1" to Avri's statements in this thread. Greg On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Seun, all,
This request for a summary of where we stand is well understood, and perfectly appropriate at this point. Our plan is to provide such a quick summary before Dublin.
Until then, you can refer to : - the summary we provided during last week ccwg call (available in recording or through the notes) - the slides that I shared in my email "update from Brussels", which I used to update the centr meeting.
Feedback regarding our summaries is and will be welcome of course.
Many thanks to those, especially Avri, who provided detailed inputs to that request as well.
Best,
Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
Le 10 oct. 2015 à 20:54, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> a écrit :
Dear Co-Chairs,
FWIW, I think at this point, it will be good to have an understanding of where we are heading from the Co-Chairs. In some discussions it seem we have understood and agreed that a model that implies a structural change is impractical during this transition phase hence the suggestion made by Steve.
Yet in other discussions it seem we are going ahead with the structural change model irrespective of the concerns raised from parts of the community and board.
In other to prepare towards Dublin and contribute in a meaningful way, I think a summary of where we are presently and what is expected to be achieved in Dublin will be helpful. I apologise if this has already been shared, and in that case a pointer will be appreciated.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 10 Oct 2015 19:37, "Stephen Deerhake" <sdeerhake@nic.as> wrote:
Paul,
Perhaps the Board chair is articulating a minority viewpoint? Afterall, the Board will have to vote on the matter of sending/not sending the output of the CCWG on to NTIA.
Stephen Deerhake
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:05 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
With respect Bruce, I share Anne's view that this is not accurate. The Board chair has stated unequivocally that the Board will not submit a Membership based proposal. That is contrary to the statement that the Board will submit any proposal it receives from the CCWG "as is." That is categorically ruling out one type of "as is" proposal.
If you are seriously telling me that even after all this back and forth the Board actually would submit a "Membership only" based proposal to the NTIA then I would respectfully say that the Board has done a very poor job of communicating.
So ... answer this question please as directly as you are willing: If, today, the CCWG having considered but declined to accept the Board's input were to submit a proposal based upon a Membership organization would the Board transmit it to the NTIA as the ICANN proposal?
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:03 PM To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin
Hello Paul,
Regarding:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
The statement still holds.
The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has stated all along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait for a final proposal to raise any concerns.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 On Oct 11, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I look forward to the Co-Chairs' summary. I feel the need to reject the following statement by Seun as baseless and inaccurate: In some discussions it seem we have understood and agreed that a model that implies a structural change is impractical during this transition phase hence the suggestion made by Steve [DelBianco] . I understand that some (including Seun) feel this way. But there is no basis for saying "we have ... agreed" with this statement. Of course, I may be reading the statement incorrectly; I am assuming that "we" refers to the CCWG (or the the CCWG Members, of which I am not one, but who in any event should be guided by their stakeholder organizations). If "we" refers to some other group (such as those who agree with the statement) then maybe it is accurate. Otherwise, no way. I find that the surest way not to come to an agreement is to pretend it has already been reached. It tend to inflame, rather than convince, those who disagree or who are weighing their position. Finally, a general "+1" to Avri's statements in this thread. Greg On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Seun, all, This request for a summary of where we stand is well understood, and perfectly appropriate at this point. Our plan is to provide such a quick summary before Dublin. Until then, you can refer to : - the summary we provided during last week ccwg call (available in recording or through the notes) - the slides that I shared in my email "update from Brussels", which I used to update the centr meeting. Feedback regarding our summaries is and will be welcome of course. Many thanks to those, especially Avri, who provided detailed inputs to that request as well. Best, Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style Le 10 oct. 2015 à 20:54, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> a écrit : Dear Co-Chairs, FWIW, I think at this point, it will be good to have an understanding of where we are heading from the Co-Chairs. In some discussions it seem we have understood and agreed that a model that implies a structural change is impractical during this transition phase hence the suggestion made by Steve. Yet in other discussions it seem we are going ahead with the structural change model irrespective of the concerns raised from parts of the community and board. In other to prepare towards Dublin and contribute in a meaningful way, I think a summary of where we are presently and what is expected to be achieved in Dublin will be helpful. I apologise if this has already been shared, and in that case a pointer will be appreciated. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 10 Oct 2015 19:37, "Stephen Deerhake" <sdeerhake@nic.as<mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>> wrote: Paul, Perhaps the Board chair is articulating a minority viewpoint? Afterall, the Board will have to vote on the matter of sending/not sending the output of the CCWG on to NTIA. Stephen Deerhake -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:05 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>; 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin With respect Bruce, I share Anne's view that this is not accurate. The Board chair has stated unequivocally that the Board will not submit a Membership based proposal. That is contrary to the statement that the Board will submit any proposal it receives from the CCWG "as is." That is categorically ruling out one type of "as is" proposal. If you are seriously telling me that even after all this back and forth the Board actually would submit a "Membership only" based proposal to the NTIA then I would respectfully say that the Board has done a very poor job of communicating. So ... answer this question please as directly as you are willing: If, today, the CCWG having considered but declined to accept the Board's input were to submit a proposal based upon a Membership organization would the Board transmit it to the NTIA as the ICANN proposal? Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto: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> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>] Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:03 PM To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin Hello Paul, Regarding: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en The statement still holds. The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has stated all along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait for a final proposal to raise any concerns. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 as well, no need to declare the results of a consensus that was never asked for.
participants (10)
-
Aarti Bhavana -
Adebunmi AKINBO -
Avri Doria -
Carlos Raul -
Chartier, Mike S -
Greg Shatan -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Mathieu Weill -
Ron Baione -
Seun Ojedeji