Lawyers' Meeting on Friday
Dear Co-Chairs, I understand that CCWG's Counsel met with ICANN's Counsel. I have not seen the report/minutes/notes from the meeting. Can you please ask staff to expedite transcription and posting to the list? greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
Dear Co-Chairs, I can not receive a response hereto in my in-tray. Can you please advise? el On 2015-09-28 00:17, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I understand that CCWG's Counsel met with ICANN's Counsel.
I have not seen the report/minutes/notes from the meeting.
Can you please ask staff to expedite transcription and posting to the list?
greetings, el
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Dear Co Chair, I fully support Dr. Regarding transparency and openness Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Sep 2015, at 18:54, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I can not receive a response hereto in my in-tray. Can you please advise?
el
On 2015-09-28 00:17, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Dear Co-Chairs,
I understand that CCWG's Counsel met with ICANN's Counsel.
I have not seen the report/minutes/notes from the meeting.
Can you please ask staff to expedite transcription and posting to the list?
greetings, el
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I also support this request for transparency / openness, and would find the points discussed very useful to enhancing my own understanding of the underlying issues. I am probably not alone in that respect. Thanks, Robin On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Co Chair, I fully support Dr. Regarding transparency and openness Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Sep 2015, at 18:54, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I can not receive a response hereto in my in-tray. Can you please advise?
el
On 2015-09-28 00:17, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Dear Co-Chairs,
I understand that CCWG's Counsel met with ICANN's Counsel.
I have not seen the report/minutes/notes from the meeting.
Can you please ask staff to expedite transcription and posting to the list?
greetings, el
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Yes. I also support this. I understand that the Board has made the Jones Day impact assessment available. But in a note it states that it has had discussions with advisors and staff. I would also like to request for any document that the Board has received in its discussion with the advisors and staff and notes of the deliberation of their meetings. Board's reaction to CCWG proposal has come as a surprise. I hope it can be remedied by disclosing the basis on which Board has decided to disagree with CCWG and come up with a new approach . On 30 September 2015 at 20:58, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I also support this request for transparency / openness, and would find the points discussed very useful to enhancing my own understanding of the underlying issues. I am probably not alone in that respect.
Thanks, Robin
On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Co Chair, I fully support Dr. Regarding transparency and openness Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Sep 2015, at 18:54, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I can not receive a response hereto in my in-tray. Can you please advise?
el
On 2015-09-28 00:17, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Dear Co-Chairs,
I understand that CCWG's Counsel met with ICANN's Counsel.
I have not seen the report/minutes/notes from the meeting.
Can you please ask staff to expedite transcription and posting to the list?
greetings, el
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5
-- Farzaneh
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 8:12 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:
Board's reaction to CCWG proposal has come as a surprise.
Really?
I hope it can be remedied by disclosing the basis on which Board has decided to disagree with CCWG and come up with a new approach .
I think a lot has been said about reasons on this list, whether the CCWG agree that the reasons are important and valid is another thing entirely Regards
On 30 September 2015 at 20:58, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I also support this request for transparency / openness, and would find the points discussed very useful to enhancing my own understanding of the underlying issues. I am probably not alone in that respect.
Thanks, Robin
On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Co Chair, I fully support Dr. Regarding transparency and openness Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Sep 2015, at 18:54, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I can not receive a response hereto in my in-tray. Can you please advise?
el
On 2015-09-28 00:17, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Dear Co-Chairs,
I understand that CCWG's Counsel met with ICANN's Counsel.
I have not seen the report/minutes/notes from the meeting.
Can you please ask staff to expedite transcription and posting to the list?
greetings, el
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5
-- Farzaneh
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
On 1 October 2015 at 00:12, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 8:12 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:
Board's reaction to CCWG proposal has come as a surprise.
Really?
Yes . Really. I refer you to the meeting that was held on 2 September 2015. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56133316 I also refer you to the meeting with Board which was held in BA. Please read the transcript. You can see there is no outright rejection of a suggested model. https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-board-ccwg-accountability
I hope it can be remedied by disclosing the basis on which Board has decided to disagree with CCWG and come up with a new approach .
I think a lot has been said about reasons on this list, whether the CCWG agree that the reasons are important and valid is another thing entirely
I think that you are wrong Seun. We still are not clear what the Board means by the "gaps" in CCWG proposal. we are still not clear on why the Board has come up with a new approach or their so called MEM mechanism. We have 40 questions from the 2 September meeting, most of them unanswered. I think you guys went to LA to get answers but ... did you? If their decision is solely based on Jones Day impact analysis then why did we need CCWG ? we should have just asked Jones Day to come up with a new model! If their decision is based on other advice and deliberation as well, why not disclose it? What is so wrong with that? Regards
On 30 September 2015 at 20:58, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I also support this request for transparency / openness, and would find the points discussed very useful to enhancing my own understanding of the underlying issues. I am probably not alone in that respect.
Thanks, Robin
On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Co Chair, I fully support Dr. Regarding transparency and openness Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Sep 2015, at 18:54, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I can not receive a response hereto in my in-tray. Can you please advise?
el
On 2015-09-28 00:17, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Dear Co-Chairs,
I understand that CCWG's Counsel met with ICANN's Counsel.
I have not seen the report/minutes/notes from the meeting.
Can you please ask staff to expedite transcription and posting to the list?
greetings, el
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5
-- Farzaneh
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-- Farzaneh
Hi Farzaneh, Below is an highlight from the September meeting: "Board will move to membership model if not possible to do all the community requirements in current model." So when the CCWG continued the path of membership without looking at other ways to achieve the goals then the board thought it should help. I am sure if they had come criticising the proposal without providing a solution, me and you would have still complained (as we infact did when board initially provided skeletal proposal) Overall I think we should recognise the process as a need for power balance and not a power grab/shift Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 1 Oct 2015 05:23, "farzaneh badii" <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 October 2015 at 00:12, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 8:12 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com
wrote:
Board's reaction to CCWG proposal has come as a surprise.
Really?
Yes . Really. I refer you to the meeting that was held on 2 September 2015. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56133316
I also refer you to the meeting with Board which was held in BA. Please read the transcript. You can see there is no outright rejection of a suggested model. https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-board-ccwg-accountability
I hope it can be remedied by disclosing the basis on which Board has decided to disagree with CCWG and come up with a new approach .
I think a lot has been said about reasons on this list, whether the CCWG agree that the reasons are important and valid is another thing entirely
I think that you are wrong Seun. We still are not clear what the Board means by the "gaps" in CCWG proposal. we are still not clear on why the Board has come up with a new approach or their so called MEM mechanism. We have 40 questions from the 2 September meeting, most of them unanswered. I think you guys went to LA to get answers but ... did you? If their decision is solely based on Jones Day impact analysis then why did we need CCWG ? we should have just asked Jones Day to come up with a new model! If their decision is based on other advice and deliberation as well, why not disclose it? What is so wrong with that?
Regards
On 30 September 2015 at 20:58, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I also support this request for transparency / openness, and would find the points discussed very useful to enhancing my own understanding of the underlying issues. I am probably not alone in that respect.
Thanks, Robin
On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Co Chair, I fully support Dr. Regarding transparency and openness Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Sep 2015, at 18:54, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I can not receive a response hereto in my in-tray. Can you please advise?
el
> On 2015-09-28 00:17, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: > Dear Co-Chairs, > > I understand that CCWG's Counsel met with ICANN's Counsel. > > I have not seen the report/minutes/notes from the meeting. > > Can you please ask staff to expedite transcription and posting to > the list? > > greetings, el
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5
-- Farzaneh
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-- Farzaneh
Seun: Overall I think we should recognise the process as a need for power Balance and not a power grab/shift Wolfgang: 1++
Can I just clarify something here: asking for additional documents and advice that Board has received which relate to CCWG work does not one bit suggests that we are implying power grab. I find it quite outrageous that a simple request for some information that may be or may not be available leads to such wrong misinterpretation. Bruce, Thank you. Your assurance that the documents will be provided to the possible extent was what I needed. It's a part of informational justice. And thank you for being so responsive throughout. On 1 October 2015 at 10:18, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
Seun: Overall I think we should recognise the process as a need for power Balance and not a power grab/shift
Wolfgang: 1++
-- Farzaneh
Just for clarity as well, I was also responding to your comments below: Farzaneh wrote: "Yes . Really. I refer you to the meeting that was held on 2 September 2015. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56133316 I also refer you to the meeting with Board which was held in BA. Please read the transcript. You can see there is no outright rejection of a suggested model." Certainly asking for transcript is from your comments above. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 1 Oct 2015 09:29, "farzaneh badii" <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I just clarify something here: asking for additional documents and advice that Board has received which relate to CCWG work does not one bit suggests that we are implying power grab. I find it quite outrageous that a simple request for some information that may be or may not be available leads to such wrong misinterpretation.
Bruce, Thank you. Your assurance that the documents will be provided to the possible extent was what I needed. It's a part of informational justice. And thank you for being so responsive throughout.
On 1 October 2015 at 10:18, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
Seun: Overall I think we should recognise the process as a need for power Balance and not a power grab/shift
Wolfgang: 1++
-- Farzaneh
Hello Farzaneh,
I understand that the Board has made the Jones Day impact assessment available. But in a note it states that it has had discussions with advisors and staff. I would also like to request for any document that the Board has received in its discussion with the advisors and staff and notes of the deliberation of their meetings.
Yes our intent is to make all documents available. So far the only one that I am aware of is the Jones Day analysis that was published. We received verbal briefings form the Advisors to the CCWG (https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Advisors) , and I understand these advisors also gave verbal briefings to the CCWG, as well as any written comments they have posted to the public comments forum. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Bruce, indeed. And, we are most interested in the transcripts/notes of the verbal interactions of Friday 2015-09-25 (evening) between Jones Day and the CCWG's Advisors. el On 2015-10-01 09:32, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Farzaneh,
I understand that the Board has made the Jones Day impact assessment available. But in a note it states that it has had discussions with advisors and staff. I would also like to request for any document that the Board has received in its discussion with the advisors and staff and notes of the deliberation of their meetings.
Yes our intent is to make all documents available. So far the only one that I am aware of is the Jones Day analysis that was published.
We received verbal briefings form the Advisors to the CCWG (https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Advisors) , and I understand these advisors also gave verbal briefings to the CCWG, as well as any written comments they have posted to the public comments forum.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Hi Bruce What advice has Jones Day or ICANN's in house legal team given to the Board - either directly or through management - or directly to management - that has led to erroneous conclusions regarding whether or not the decisions to exercise powers on the part of a member can be constrained or not? Such erroneous conclusions were evident from the comments of some board members in Los Angeles. Can that advise or a summary of it be shared with the CCWG? Thanks Jordan On Thursday, 1 October 2015, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Farzaneh,
I understand that the Board has made the Jones Day impact assessment available. But in a note it states that it has had discussions with advisors and staff. I would also like to request for any document that the Board has received in its discussion with the advisors and staff and notes of the deliberation of their meetings.
Yes our intent is to make all documents available. So far the only one that I am aware of is the Jones Day analysis that was published.
We received verbal briefings form the Advisors to the CCWG ( https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Advisors) , and I understand these advisors also gave verbal briefings to the CCWG, as well as any written comments they have posted to the public comments forum.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:;> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
Hello Jordan,
What advice has Jones Day or ICANN's in house legal team given to the Board - either directly or through management - or directly to management - that has led to erroneous conclusions regarding whether or not the decisions to exercise powers on the part of a member can be constrained or not?
I will check to see if we have received any legal advice on that topic and share it with the group. I think as Chris noted you can’t actually limit a statutory power, but the idea is to limit what the member does via the member’s own operating procedures. There is probably still nothing stopping the member though if it actually wanted to use the statutory power. Ie the member has legal standing and can still enforce its statutory powers under California law. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
I don't wish to throw a spanner in the works, but I'm confused. Legitimacy derives from membership. Designing systems to prevent members of an organisation from exercising their statutory rights seems to me to be functionally bassackwards and "wrong" in a psychological sense. My perception is we are focussing too much on implementation and not enough on getting agreement on the fundamentals. Such as "are there any circumstances under which the current Board of ICANN would support any form of membership as an accountability measure?" That's a yes/no question. I keep hearing that there is a definite and definitive answer to it, which most colleagues appear to be pretending they haven't heard. Am I correct? If so, can someone please repeat the answer? On 10/02/2015 08:43 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Jordan,
What advice has Jones Day or ICANN's in house legal team given to the Board - either directly or through management - or directly to management - that has led to erroneous conclusions regarding whether or not the decisions to exercise powers on the part of a member can be constrained or not?
I will check to see if we have received any legal advice on that topic and share it with the group.
I think as Chris noted you can’t actually limit a statutory power, but the idea is to limit what the member does via the member’s own operating procedures. There is probably still nothing stopping the member though if it actually wanted to use the statutory power. Ie the member has legal standing and can still enforce its statutory powers under California law.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Nigel, are there any circumstances under which the current Board of ICANN would support any form of membership as an accountability measure? I also want to hear the response Many thanks Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________ email: carlosraulg@gmail.com Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA
On Oct 2, 2015, at 2:15 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
are there any circumstances under which the current Board of ICANN would support any form of membership as an accountability measure?
Carlos This question was raised by Jonathan at LA, Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Oct 2015, at 13:31, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <carlosraulg@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Nigel,
are there any circumstances under which the current Board of ICANN would support any form of membership as an accountability measure?
I also want to hear the response
Many thanks
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________
email: carlosraulg@gmail.com Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA
On Oct 2, 2015, at 2:15 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
are there any circumstances under which the current Board of ICANN would support any form of membership as an accountability measure?
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
hi Bruce, all: On 2 October 2015 at 20:43, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote: > Hello Jordan, > > > > >> What advice has Jones Day or ICANN's in house legal team given to the > Board - either directly or through management - or directly to management > - that has led to erroneous conclusions regarding whether or not the > decisions to exercise powers on the part of a member can be constrained or > not? > > > > I will check to see if we have received any legal advice on that topic and > share it with the group. > > > > I think as Chris noted you can’t actually limit a statutory power, but the > idea is to limit what the member does via the member’s own operating > procedures. There is probably still nothing stopping the member though if > it actually wanted to use the statutory power. Ie the member has legal > standing and can still enforce its statutory powers under California law. > > > This is the heart of the misconception that needs to be cleared up, so thank you for stating it so clearly. The decision-making procedures of the single member can very clearly apply such thresholds to certain decisions that would be available to the single member - just like the bylaws do now for some Board decisions. The procedures the CMSM uses, if we go down that route. should be in the bylaws. And the procedures should only be able to be changed by full consensus of the community - including the Board. So nobody is pretending, and nobody should argue, that the CMSM model wouldn't "have" the powers. It's more the case that both of its arms would be tied behind its back and it would be utterly and conclusively unable to exercise some of those powers. best Jordan
Dear all, We have asked the lawyers to provide their notes on the meeting held so we can all be on the same page. I will forward you this information as soon as we get it. Best regards, León Sent from my iPad
On Sep 30, 2015, at 1:58 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I also support this request for transparency / openness, and would find the points discussed very useful to enhancing my own understanding of the underlying issues. I am probably not alone in that respect.
Thanks, Robin
On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Co Chair, I fully support Dr. Regarding transparency and openness Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Sep 2015, at 18:54, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I can not receive a response hereto in my in-tray. Can you please advise?
el
On 2015-09-28 00:17, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Dear Co-Chairs,
I understand that CCWG's Counsel met with ICANN's Counsel.
I have not seen the report/minutes/notes from the meeting.
Can you please ask staff to expedite transcription and posting to the list?
greetings, el
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5
Thank you, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 1 Oct 2015, at 07:11, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
We have asked the lawyers to provide their notes on the meeting held so we can all be on the same page.
I will forward you this information as soon as we get it.
Best regards,
León Sent from my iPad
On Sep 30, 2015, at 1:58 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I also support this request for transparency / openness, and would find the points discussed very useful to enhancing my own understanding of the underlying issues. I am probably not alone in that respect.
Thanks, Robin
On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Co Chair, I fully support Dr. Regarding transparency and openness Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Sep 2015, at 18:54, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I can not receive a response hereto in my in-tray. Can you please advise?
el
On 2015-09-28 00:17, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Dear Co-Chairs,
I understand that CCWG's Counsel met with ICANN's Counsel.
I have not seen the report/minutes/notes from the meeting.
Can you please ask staff to expedite transcription and posting to the list?
greetings, el
participants (11)
-
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" -
Bruce Tonkin -
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
farzaneh badii -
Jordan Carter -
Kavouss Arasteh -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Nigel Roberts -
Robin Gross -
Seun Ojedeji