CCWG-ACCT 21-day Public Comment Is Live
Hello all, The 21-day public comment period of the CCWG-Accountability Draft Work Stream 1 Recommendations has just been posted here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201 5-11-30-en. The comment period will run from November 30 through 23:59 UTC on December 21. We hope to begin receiving translations in the next 12-14 days. Thank you! Hillary -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org
Thanks, but the report still incorrectly states that there are no minority opinions. Why hasn’t the NCSG dissenting opinion been posted or acknowledged in the report? Please fix this incorrect information and omission of a dissenting opinion from the report’s publication. Robin
On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org> wrote:
Hello all,
The 21-day public comment period of the CCWG-Accountability Draft Work Stream 1 Recommendations has just been posted here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201... <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201...>. The comment period will run from November 30 through 23:59 UTC on December 21.
We hope to begin receiving translations in the next 12-14 days.
Thank you! Hillary
-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Robin, Thank you for the note. We will be updating the Appendix tomorrow with minority statements received since 29 November. Best, Hillary -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: Monday, November 30, 2015 at 9:21 PM To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org> Cc: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT 21-day Public Comment Is Live Thanks, but the report still incorrectly states that there are no minority opinions. Why hasn¹t the NCSG dissenting opinion been posted or acknowledged in the report? Please fix this incorrect information and omission of a dissenting opinion from the report¹s publication. Robin
On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org> wrote:
Hello all,
The 21-day public comment period of the CCWG-Accountability Draft Work Stream 1 Recommendations has just been posted here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201... 11-30-en. The comment period will run from November 30 through 23:59 UTC on December 21.
We hope to begin receiving translations in the next 12-14 days.
Thank you! Hillary
-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Hilary, I note that my dissenting opinion was sent on 29 November and was not included in the report upon the report’s publication on 1 December. Moreover, the report has incorrectly stated that there are no dissenting opinions, however the chairs acknowledged this dissenting opinion during the CCWG meeting on 2 November. Why did the report knowingly make a false statement about no dissent and why has the dissenting opinion still not been included with the report? I find the delay in fixing this to be unacceptable. If ICANN can’t even be trusted to honestly report on the accountability recommendations, we really have our work cut out for us. Robin
Begin forwarded message:
From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: November 29, 2015 at 3:40:45 PM PST To: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report
Thanks, Thomas. See below.
Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG)
The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an “advisory” role to a “decision making” role over fundamental matters at ICANN, including its governance. Consequently the proposal marginalizes the role of Supporting Organizations (SO’s) compared to today’s ICANN governance structure. The degree of governmental empowerment over ICANN resulting from the proposal’s community mechanism is dangerous to the success of the proposal’s political acceptance as well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet.
The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing power balance between SO’s and AC’s as determined by relative board appointments. Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates the AC’s relative to the SO’s compared with today’s balance on ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within the SO’s mandate. The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in ICANN’s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing SO’s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report. The community mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the various SO’s and AC’s, and the dangers inherent in changing those roles with a “one size fits all” approach to critical decision making.
Additionally, I object to the proposed departure from ICANN’s typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for CCWG-Accountability. The 3rd report’s public comment only allows for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public comment period for a report of this significance and with so many important changes since previous drafts.
Robin Gross
On Nov 29, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote:
Dear Robin, as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received.
Best, Thomas
--- rickert.net <http://rickert.net/>
Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have still not received a response to this request. What is the process for submitting minority statements? Please advise.
Thanks, Robin
On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]?
Thank you, Robin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for the note. We will be updating the Appendix tomorrow with minority statements received since 29 November.
Best, Hillary
-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>
From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Date: Monday, November 30, 2015 at 9:21 PM To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> Cc: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT 21-day Public Comment Is Live
Thanks, but the report still incorrectly states that there are no minority opinions. Why hasn’t the NCSG dissenting opinion been posted or acknowledged in the report? Please fix this incorrect information and omission of a dissenting opinion from the report’s publication.
Robin
On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> wrote:
Hello all,
The 21-day public comment period of the CCWG-Accountability Draft Work Stream 1 Recommendations has just been posted here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201... <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201...>. The comment period will run from November 30 through 23:59 UTC on December 21.
We hope to begin receiving translations in the next 12-14 days.
Thank you! Hillary
-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
Maybe we can come up with a plan to make ICANN more accountable?? .. oh wait ... N. On 12/01/2015 05:07 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
Dear Hilary,
I note that my dissenting opinion was sent on 29 November and was not included in the report upon the report’s publication on 1 December.
Moreover, the report has incorrectly stated that there are no dissenting opinions, however the chairs acknowledged this dissenting opinion during the CCWG meeting on 2 November. Why did the report knowingly make a false statement about no dissent and why has the dissenting opinion still not been included with the report? I find the delay in fixing this to be unacceptable. If ICANN can’t even be trusted to honestly report on the accountability recommendations, we really have our work cut out for us.
Robin
Begin forwarded message:
*From: *Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> *Date: *November 29, 2015 at 3:40:45 PM PST *To: *Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> *Cc: *León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> *Subject: **Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report*
Thanks, Thomas. See below.
*Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG)*
The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an “advisory” role to a “decision making” role over fundamental matters at ICANN, including its governance. Consequently the proposal marginalizes the role of Supporting Organizations (SO’s) compared to today’s ICANN governance structure. The degree of governmental empowerment over ICANN resulting from the proposal’s community mechanism is dangerous to the success of the proposal’s political acceptance as well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet.
The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing power balance between SO’s and AC’s as determined by relative board appointments. Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates the AC’s relative to the SO’s compared with today’s balance on ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within the SO’s mandate. The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in ICANN’s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing SO’s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report. The community mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the various SO’s and AC’s, and the dangers inherent in changing those roles with a “one size fits all” approach to critical decision making.
Additionally, I object to the proposed departure from ICANN’s typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for CCWG-Accountability. The 3rd report’s public comment only allows for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public comment period for a report of this significance and with so many important changes since previous drafts.
Robin Gross
On Nov 29, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote:
Dear Robin, as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received.
Best, Thomas
--- rickert.net <http://rickert.net/>
Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have still not received a response to this request. What is the process for submitting minority statements? Please advise.
Thanks, Robin
On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]?
Thank you, Robin _______________________________________________ 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
On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for the note. We will be updating the Appendix tomorrow with minority statements received since 29 November.
Best, Hillary
-- *Hillary Jett* Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>
From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Date: Monday, November 30, 2015 at 9:21 PM To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> Cc: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT 21-day Public Comment Is Live
Thanks, but the report still incorrectly states that there are no minority opinions. Why hasn’t the NCSG dissenting opinion been posted or acknowledged in the report? Please fix this incorrect information and omission of a dissenting opinion from the report’s publication.
Robin
On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> wrote:
Hello all,
The 21-day public comment period of the CCWG-Accountability Draft Work Stream 1 Recommendations has just been posted here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201.... The comment period will run from November 30 through 23:59 UTC on December 21.
We hope to begin receiving translations in the next 12-14 days.
Thank you! Hillary
-- *Hillary Jett* Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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
And mine is coming as advertized. Even if Sadowsky calls it cynical, I don't want to be accused of intelligence again but I will read the 300 pages at least once. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6s On 1 Dec 2015, 19:10 +0200, Robin Gross<robin@ipjustice.org>, wrote:
Dear Hilary,
I note that my dissenting opinion was sent on 29 November and was not included in the report upon the report’s publication on 1 December.
Moreover, the report has incorrectly stated that there are no dissenting opinions, however the chairs acknowledged this dissenting opinion during the CCWG meeting on 2 November.Why did the report knowingly make a false statement about no dissent and why has the dissenting opinion still not been included with the report?I find the delay in fixing this to be unacceptable.If ICANN can’t even be trusted to honestly report on the accountability recommendations, we really have our work cut out for us.
Robin
Begin forwarded message: From:Robin Gross<robin@ipjustice.org(mailto:robin@ipjustice.org)> Date:November 29, 2015 at 3:40:45 PM PST To:Thomas Rickert<thomas@rickert.net(mailto:thomas@rickert.net)> Cc:León Felipe Sánchez Ambía<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx(mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx)>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr(mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr))"<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr(mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr)>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org(mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org)Community"<accountability-cross-community@icann.org(mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org)> Subject:Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report
Thanks, Thomas.See below.
Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG)
The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an “advisory” role to a “decision making” role over fundamental matters at ICANN, including its governance.Consequently the proposal marginalizes the role of Supporting Organizations (SO’s) compared to today’s ICANN governance structure.The degree of governmental empowerment over ICANN resulting from the proposal’s community mechanism is dangerous to the success of the proposal’s political acceptance as well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet.
The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing power balance between SO’s and AC’s as determined by relative board appointments.Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates the AC’s relative to the SO’s compared with today’s balance on ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within the SO’s mandate.The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in ICANN’s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing SO’s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report.The community mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the various SO’s and AC’s, and the dangers inherent in changing those roles with a “one size fits all” approach to critical decision making.
Additionally, I object to the proposed departure from ICANN’s typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for CCWG-Accountability.The 3rd report’s public comment only allows for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public comment period for a report of this significance and with so many important changes since previous drafts.
Robin Gross
On Nov 29, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Rickert<thomas@rickert.net(mailto:thomas@rickert.net)>wrote: Dear Robin, as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received.
Best, Thomas
--- rickert.net(http://rickert.net/)
Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross<robin@ipjustice.org(mailto:robin@ipjustice.org)>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have still not received a response to this request.What is the process for submitting minority statements?Please advise.
Thanks, Robin
On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross<robin@ipjustice.org(mailto:robin@ipjustice.org)>wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]?
Thank you, Robin _______________________________________________ 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
On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Hillary Jett<hillary.jett@icann.org(mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org)>wrote: Hi Robin,
Thank you for the note. We will be updating the Appendix tomorrow with minority statements received since 29 November.
Best, Hillary
-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1(202) 674-3403 Email:hillary.jett@icann.org(mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org)
From:Robin Gross<robin@ipjustice.org(mailto:robin@ipjustice.org)> Date:Monday, November 30, 2015 at 9:21 PM To:Hillary Jett<hillary.jett@icann.org(mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org)> Cc:CCWG-Accountability<accountability-cross-community@icann.org(mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org)>, Thomas Rickert<thomas@rickert.net(mailto:thomas@rickert.net)>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía<leonfelipe@sanchez.mx(mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx)>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr(mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr))"<Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr(mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr)>, Grace Abuhamad<grace.abuhamad@icann.org(mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org)> Subject:Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT 21-day Public Comment Is Live
Thanks, but the report still incorrectly states that there are no minority opinions.Why hasn’t the NCSG dissenting opinion been posted or acknowledged in the report?Please fix this incorrect information and omission of a dissenting opinion from the report’s publication.
Robin
On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Hillary Jett<hillary.jett@icann.org(mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org)>wrote: Hello all,
The 21-day public comment period of the CCWG-Accountability Draft Work Stream 1 Recommendations has just been posted here:https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201.... The comment period will run from November 30 through 23:59 UTC on December 21.
We hope to begin receiving translations in the next 12-14 days.
Thank you! Hillary
-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1(202) 674-3403 Email:hillary.jett@icann.org(mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org)
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Robin, Appendix A has been updated with your minority viewpoint. It is reflected on the Public Comment page that the document has been updated as of 1 December 2015. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propos al-appendix-a-30nov15-en.pdf Thanks, Hillary -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:07 PM To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org> Cc: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT 21-day Public Comment Is Live Dear Hilary, I note that my dissenting opinion was sent on 29 November and was not included in the report upon the report¹s publication on 1 December. Moreover, the report has incorrectly stated that there are no dissenting opinions, however the chairs acknowledged this dissenting opinion during the CCWG meeting on 2 November. Why did the report knowingly make a false statement about no dissent and why has the dissenting opinion still not been included with the report? I find the delay in fixing this to be unacceptable. If ICANN can¹t even be trusted to honestly report on the accountability recommendations, we really have our work cut out for us. Robin
Begin forwarded message:
From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: November 29, 2015 at 3:40:45 PM PST To: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report
Thanks, Thomas. See below.
Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG)
The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an ³advisory² role to a ³decision making² role over fundamental matters at ICANN, including its governance. Consequently the proposal marginalizes the role of Supporting Organizations (SO¹s) compared to today¹s ICANN governance structure. The degree of governmental empowerment over ICANN resulting from the proposal¹s community mechanism is dangerous to the success of the proposal¹s political acceptance as well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet.
The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing power balance between SO¹s and AC¹s as determined by relative board appointments. Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates the AC¹s relative to the SO¹s compared with today¹s balance on ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within the SO¹s mandate. The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in ICANN¹s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing SO¹s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report. The community mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the various SO¹s and AC¹s, and the dangers inherent in changing those roles with a ³one size fits all² approach to critical decision making.
Additionally, I object to the proposed departure from ICANN¹s typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for CCWG-Accountability. The 3rd report¹s public comment only allows for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public comment period for a report of this significance and with so many important changes since previous drafts.
Robin Gross
On Nov 29, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Dear Robin, as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received.
Best, Thomas
--- rickert.net <http://rickert.net/>
Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have still not received a response to this request. What is the process for submitting minority statements? Please advise.
Thanks, Robin
On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]?
Thank you, Robin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for the note. We will be updating the Appendix tomorrow with minority statements received since 29 November.
Best, Hillary
-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org
From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: Monday, November 30, 2015 at 9:21 PM To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org> Cc: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT 21-day Public Comment Is Live
Thanks, but the report still incorrectly states that there are no minority opinions. Why hasn¹t the NCSG dissenting opinion been posted or acknowledged in the report? Please fix this incorrect information and omission of a dissenting opinion from the report¹s publication.
Robin
On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org> wrote:
Hello all,
The 21-day public comment period of the CCWG-Accountability Draft Work Stream 1 Recommendations has just been posted here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201... -11-30-en. The comment period will run from November 30 through 23:59 UTC on December 21.
We hope to begin receiving translations in the next 12-14 days.
Thank you! Hillary
-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thanks, Hilary, but Appendix A still contains a big falsehood that should be corrected. It says: “As of 29 November 2015, the proposal has received the consensus support of the CCWG-Accountability with no objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering Organization consideration.” NCSG’s objection and dissent was noted for the record on 2 November (as was Eberhard’s objection) and the specific text of my opinion was sent on 29 November, although no deadline was provided for its inclusion despite my repeated requests for the dissenting statement submission process to be explained. It simply isn’t a true characterization to claim there was no dissent to any of the recommendations and the record easily demonstrates this falsehood. It does not serve ICANN to attempt to create such a false picture of unanimity on all issues in the report. The report should be able to withstand a single dissent, which deserves to be recorded for Chartering Organization consideration, despite what the drafters (whoever they are) claim. This misrepresentation needs to be fixed or the veracity of everything else in the report is in doubt as well. Robin
On Dec 1, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Appendix A has been updated with your minority viewpoint. It is reflected on the Public Comment page that the document has been updated as of 1 December 2015.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propos... <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propos...>
Thanks, Hillary
-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>
From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:07 PM To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> Cc: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT 21-day Public Comment Is Live
Dear Hilary,
I note that my dissenting opinion was sent on 29 November and was not included in the report upon the report’s publication on 1 December.
Moreover, the report has incorrectly stated that there are no dissenting opinions, however the chairs acknowledged this dissenting opinion during the CCWG meeting on 2 November. Why did the report knowingly make a false statement about no dissent and why has the dissenting opinion still not been included with the report? I find the delay in fixing this to be unacceptable. If ICANN can’t even be trusted to honestly report on the accountability recommendations, we really have our work cut out for us.
Robin
Begin forwarded message:
From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Date: November 29, 2015 at 3:40:45 PM PST To: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report
Thanks, Thomas. See below.
Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG)
The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an “advisory” role to a “decision making” role over fundamental matters at ICANN, including its governance. Consequently the proposal marginalizes the role of Supporting Organizations (SO’s) compared to today’s ICANN governance structure. The degree of governmental empowerment over ICANN resulting from the proposal’s community mechanism is dangerous to the success of the proposal’s political acceptance as well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet.
The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing power balance between SO’s and AC’s as determined by relative board appointments. Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates the AC’s relative to the SO’s compared with today’s balance on ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within the SO’s mandate. The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in ICANN’s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing SO’s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report. The community mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the various SO’s and AC’s, and the dangers inherent in changing those roles with a “one size fits all” approach to critical decision making.
Additionally, I object to the proposed departure from ICANN’s typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for CCWG-Accountability. The 3rd report’s public comment only allows for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public comment period for a report of this significance and with so many important changes since previous drafts.
Robin Gross
On Nov 29, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote:
Dear Robin, as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received.
Best, Thomas
--- rickert.net <http://rickert.net/>
Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have still not received a response to this request. What is the process for submitting minority statements? Please advise.
Thanks, Robin
On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]?
Thank you, Robin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for the note. We will be updating the Appendix tomorrow with minority statements received since 29 November.
Best, Hillary
-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>
From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Date: Monday, November 30, 2015 at 9:21 PM To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> Cc: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT 21-day Public Comment Is Live
Thanks, but the report still incorrectly states that there are no minority opinions. Why hasn’t the NCSG dissenting opinion been posted or acknowledged in the report? Please fix this incorrect information and omission of a dissenting opinion from the report’s publication.
Robin
On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> wrote:
Hello all,
The 21-day public comment period of the CCWG-Accountability Draft Work Stream 1 Recommendations has just been posted here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201... <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201...>. The comment period will run from November 30 through 23:59 UTC on December 21.
We hope to begin receiving translations in the next 12-14 days.
Thank you! Hillary
-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
Hi Robin, all, we will amend the language in the appendix. You are correct there was no full consensus and we should have made sure this is reflected in the report. Should there be further concerns or questions, please do direct them at us co-chairs instead of staff, please! While staff has done and continues to do a great job, it is us co-chairs that are responsible for taking care if such issues. Thanks and kind regards, Thomas --- rickert.net
Am 01.12.2015 um 22:02 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>:
Thanks, Hilary, but Appendix A still contains a big falsehood that should be corrected. It says: “As of 29 November 2015, the proposal has received the consensus support of the CCWG-Accountability with no objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering Organization consideration.”
NCSG’s objection and dissent was noted for the record on 2 November (as was Eberhard’s objection) and the specific text of my opinion was sent on 29 November, although no deadline was provided for its inclusion despite my repeated requests for the dissenting statement submission process to be explained.
It simply isn’t a true characterization to claim there was no dissent to any of the recommendations and the record easily demonstrates this falsehood. It does not serve ICANN to attempt to create such a false picture of unanimity on all issues in the report. The report should be able to withstand a single dissent, which deserves to be recorded for Chartering Organization consideration, despite what the drafters (whoever they are) claim. This misrepresentation needs to be fixed or the veracity of everything else in the report is in doubt as well.
Robin
On Dec 1, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Appendix A has been updated with your minority viewpoint. It is reflected on the Public Comment page that the document has been updated as of 1 December 2015.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propos...
Thanks, Hillary
-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org
From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:07 PM To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org> Cc: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT 21-day Public Comment Is Live
Dear Hilary,
I note that my dissenting opinion was sent on 29 November and was not included in the report upon the report’s publication on 1 December.
Moreover, the report has incorrectly stated that there are no dissenting opinions, however the chairs acknowledged this dissenting opinion during the CCWG meeting on 2 November. Why did the report knowingly make a false statement about no dissent and why has the dissenting opinion still not been included with the report? I find the delay in fixing this to be unacceptable. If ICANN can’t even be trusted to honestly report on the accountability recommendations, we really have our work cut out for us.
Robin
Begin forwarded message:
From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: November 29, 2015 at 3:40:45 PM PST To: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report
Thanks, Thomas. See below.
Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG)
The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an “advisory” role to a “decision making” role over fundamental matters at ICANN, including its governance. Consequently the proposal marginalizes the role of Supporting Organizations (SO’s) compared to today’s ICANN governance structure. The degree of governmental empowerment over ICANN resulting from the proposal’s community mechanism is dangerous to the success of the proposal’s political acceptance as well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet.
The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing power balance between SO’s and AC’s as determined by relative board appointments. Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates the AC’s relative to the SO’s compared with today’s balance on ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within the SO’s mandate. The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in ICANN’s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing SO’s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report. The community mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the various SO’s and AC’s, and the dangers inherent in changing those roles with a “one size fits all” approach to critical decision making.
Additionally, I object to the proposed departure from ICANN’s typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for CCWG-Accountability. The 3rd report’s public comment only allows for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public comment period for a report of this significance and with so many important changes since previous drafts.
Robin Gross
On Nov 29, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Dear Robin, as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received.
Best, Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have still not received a response to this request. What is the process for submitting minority statements? Please advise.
Thanks, Robin
On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]?
Thank you, Robin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for the note. We will be updating the Appendix tomorrow with minority statements received since 29 November.
Best, Hillary
-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org
From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: Monday, November 30, 2015 at 9:21 PM To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org> Cc: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT 21-day Public Comment Is Live
Thanks, but the report still incorrectly states that there are no minority opinions. Why hasn’t the NCSG dissenting opinion been posted or acknowledged in the report? Please fix this incorrect information and omission of a dissenting opinion from the report’s publication.
Robin
On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org> wrote:
Hello all,
The 21-day public comment period of the CCWG-Accountability Draft Work Stream 1 Recommendations has just been posted here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201.... The comment period will run from November 30 through 23:59 UTC on December 21.
We hope to begin receiving translations in the next 12-14 days.
Thank you! Hillary
-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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
Thank you, Thomas, I appreciate the correction being made. I would also appreciate it if the text does not imply that NCSG’s dissent was in any way untimely, or after any deadline for counting purposes, or otherwise not worthy of chartering organization consideration as is presently implied in the text. Thanks, Robin
On Dec 1, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Hi Robin, all, we will amend the language in the appendix. You are correct there was no full consensus and we should have made sure this is reflected in the report.
Should there be further concerns or questions, please do direct them at us co-chairs instead of staff, please! While staff has done and continues to do a great job, it is us co-chairs that are responsible for taking care if such issues.
Thanks and kind regards, Thomas
--- rickert.net <http://rickert.net/>
Am 01.12.2015 um 22:02 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>:
Thanks, Hilary, but Appendix A still contains a big falsehood that should be corrected. It says: “As of 29 November 2015, the proposal has received the consensus support of the CCWG-Accountability with no objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering Organization consideration.”
NCSG’s objection and dissent was noted for the record on 2 November (as was Eberhard’s objection) and the specific text of my opinion was sent on 29 November, although no deadline was provided for its inclusion despite my repeated requests for the dissenting statement submission process to be explained.
It simply isn’t a true characterization to claim there was no dissent to any of the recommendations and the record easily demonstrates this falsehood. It does not serve ICANN to attempt to create such a false picture of unanimity on all issues in the report. The report should be able to withstand a single dissent, which deserves to be recorded for Chartering Organization consideration, despite what the drafters (whoever they are) claim. This misrepresentation needs to be fixed or the veracity of everything else in the report is in doubt as well.
Robin
On Dec 1, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Appendix A has been updated with your minority viewpoint. It is reflected on the Public Comment page that the document has been updated as of 1 December 2015.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propos... <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propos...>
Thanks, Hillary
-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>
From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:07 PM To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> Cc: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT 21-day Public Comment Is Live
Dear Hilary,
I note that my dissenting opinion was sent on 29 November and was not included in the report upon the report’s publication on 1 December.
Moreover, the report has incorrectly stated that there are no dissenting opinions, however the chairs acknowledged this dissenting opinion during the CCWG meeting on 2 November. Why did the report knowingly make a false statement about no dissent and why has the dissenting opinion still not been included with the report? I find the delay in fixing this to be unacceptable. If ICANN can’t even be trusted to honestly report on the accountability recommendations, we really have our work cut out for us.
Robin
Begin forwarded message:
From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Date: November 29, 2015 at 3:40:45 PM PST To: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report
Thanks, Thomas. See below.
Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG)
The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an “advisory” role to a “decision making” role over fundamental matters at ICANN, including its governance. Consequently the proposal marginalizes the role of Supporting Organizations (SO’s) compared to today’s ICANN governance structure. The degree of governmental empowerment over ICANN resulting from the proposal’s community mechanism is dangerous to the success of the proposal’s political acceptance as well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet.
The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing power balance between SO’s and AC’s as determined by relative board appointments. Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates the AC’s relative to the SO’s compared with today’s balance on ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within the SO’s mandate. The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in ICANN’s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing SO’s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report. The community mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the various SO’s and AC’s, and the dangers inherent in changing those roles with a “one size fits all” approach to critical decision making.
Additionally, I object to the proposed departure from ICANN’s typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for CCWG-Accountability. The 3rd report’s public comment only allows for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public comment period for a report of this significance and with so many important changes since previous drafts.
Robin Gross
On Nov 29, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote:
Dear Robin, as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received.
Best, Thomas
--- rickert.net <http://rickert.net/>
Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I have still not received a response to this request. What is the process for submitting minority statements? Please advise.
Thanks, Robin
> On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: > > Dear Co-Chairs, > > Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]? > > Thank you, > Robin > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for the note. We will be updating the Appendix tomorrow with minority statements received since 29 November.
Best, Hillary
-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>
From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Date: Monday, November 30, 2015 at 9:21 PM To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> Cc: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT 21-day Public Comment Is Live
Thanks, but the report still incorrectly states that there are no minority opinions. Why hasn’t the NCSG dissenting opinion been posted or acknowledged in the report? Please fix this incorrect information and omission of a dissenting opinion from the report’s publication.
Robin
On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> wrote:
Hello all,
The 21-day public comment period of the CCWG-Accountability Draft Work Stream 1 Recommendations has just been posted here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201... <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201...>. The comment period will run from November 30 through 23:59 UTC on December 21.
We hope to begin receiving translations in the next 12-14 days.
Thank you! Hillary
-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
The same goes for my Objection (raised a month ago) and Minority Opinion, with which I am almost done. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 2 Dec 2015, at 02:14, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Thank you, Thomas, I appreciate the correction being made. I would also appreciate it if the text does not imply that NCSG’s dissent was in any way untimely, or after any deadline for counting purposes, or otherwise not worthy of chartering organization consideration as is presently implied in the text.
Thanks, Robin
On Dec 1, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Hi Robin, all, we will amend the language in the appendix. You are correct there was no full consensus and we should have made sure this is reflected in the report.
Should there be further concerns or questions, please do direct them at us co-chairs instead of staff, please! While staff has done and continues to do a great job, it is us co-chairs that are responsible for taking care if such issues.
Thanks and kind regards, Thomas
--- rickert.net
Am 01.12.2015 um 22:02 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>:
Thanks, Hilary, but Appendix A still contains a big falsehood that should be corrected. It says: “As of 29 November 2015, the proposal has received the consensus support of the CCWG-Accountability with no objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering Organization consideration.”
NCSG’s objection and dissent was noted for the record on 2 November (as was Eberhard’s objection) and the specific text of my opinion was sent on 29 November, although no deadline was provided for its inclusion despite my repeated requests for the dissenting statement submission process to be explained.
It simply isn’t a true characterization to claim there was no dissent to any of the recommendations and the record easily demonstrates this falsehood. It does not serve ICANN to attempt to create such a false picture of unanimity on all issues in the report. The report should be able to withstand a single dissent, which deserves to be recorded for Chartering Organization consideration, despite what the drafters (whoever they are) claim. This misrepresentation needs to be fixed or the veracity of everything else in the report is in doubt as well.
Robin
On Dec 1, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Appendix A has been updated with your minority viewpoint. It is reflected on the Public Comment page that the document has been updated as of 1 December 2015.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propos...
Thanks, Hillary
-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org
From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:07 PM To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org> Cc: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT 21-day Public Comment Is Live
Dear Hilary,
I note that my dissenting opinion was sent on 29 November and was not included in the report upon the report’s publication on 1 December.
Moreover, the report has incorrectly stated that there are no dissenting opinions, however the chairs acknowledged this dissenting opinion during the CCWG meeting on 2 November. Why did the report knowingly make a false statement about no dissent and why has the dissenting opinion still not been included with the report? I find the delay in fixing this to be unacceptable. If ICANN can’t even be trusted to honestly report on the accountability recommendations, we really have our work cut out for us.
Robin
Begin forwarded message:
From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: November 29, 2015 at 3:40:45 PM PST To: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report
Thanks, Thomas. See below.
Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG)
The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an “advisory” role to a “decision making” role over fundamental matters at ICANN, including its governance. Consequently the proposal marginalizes the role of Supporting Organizations (SO’s) compared to today’s ICANN governance structure. The degree of governmental empowerment over ICANN resulting from the proposal’s community mechanism is dangerous to the success of the proposal’s political acceptance as well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet.
The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing power balance between SO’s and AC’s as determined by relative board appointments. Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates the AC’s relative to the SO’s compared with today’s balance on ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within the SO’s mandate. The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in ICANN’s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing SO’s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report. The community mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the various SO’s and AC’s, and the dangers inherent in changing those roles with a “one size fits all” approach to critical decision making.
Additionally, I object to the proposed departure from ICANN’s typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for CCWG-Accountability. The 3rd report’s public comment only allows for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public comment period for a report of this significance and with so many important changes since previous drafts.
Robin Gross
On Nov 29, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Dear Robin, as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received.
Best, Thomas
--- rickert.net
> Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>: > > Dear Co-Chairs, > > I have still not received a response to this request. What is the process for submitting minority statements? Please advise. > > Thanks, > Robin > > >> On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote: >> >> Dear Co-Chairs, >> >> Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]? >> >> Thank you, >> Robin >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >
On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for the note. We will be updating the Appendix tomorrow with minority statements received since 29 November.
Best, Hillary
-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org
From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: Monday, November 30, 2015 at 9:21 PM To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org> Cc: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT 21-day Public Comment Is Live
Thanks, but the report still incorrectly states that there are no minority opinions. Why hasn’t the NCSG dissenting opinion been posted or acknowledged in the report? Please fix this incorrect information and omission of a dissenting opinion from the report’s publication.
Robin
On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org> wrote:
Hello all,
The 21-day public comment period of the CCWG-Accountability Draft Work Stream 1 Recommendations has just been posted here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201.... The comment period will run from November 30 through 23:59 UTC on December 21.
We hope to begin receiving translations in the next 12-14 days.
Thank you! Hillary
-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Co-Chairs I am very concerned that amendments are being made AFTER the publication of the Draft Proposal. Notwithstanding that these amendments are necessary, due to the material inaccuracies and omissions, it means that any member of the public or public authorityh seeking to review the document cannot do so meaningfully as it is 'dynamic'. May I therefore, please request a Public Comment period be arranged on a static Proposal? On 12/02/2015 12:14 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
Thank you, Thomas, I appreciate the correction being made. I would also appreciate it if the text does not imply that NCSG’s dissent was in any way untimely, or after any deadline for counting purposes, or otherwise not worthy of chartering organization consideration as is presently implied in the text.
Thanks, Robin
On Dec 1, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> wrote:
Hi Robin, all, we will amend the language in the appendix. You are correct there was no full consensus and we should have made sure this is reflected in the report.
Should there be further concerns or questions, please do direct them at us co-chairs instead of staff, please! While staff has done and continues to do a great job, it is us co-chairs that are responsible for taking care if such issues.
Thanks and kind regards, Thomas
--- rickert.net <http://rickert.net/>
Am 01.12.2015 um 22:02 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>:
Thanks, Hilary, but Appendix A still contains a big falsehood that should be corrected. It says: “As of 29 November 2015, the proposal has received the consensus support of the CCWG-Accountability with no objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering Organization consideration.”
NCSG’s objection and dissent was noted for the record on 2 November (as was Eberhard’s objection) and the specific text of my opinion was sent on 29 November, although no deadline was provided for its inclusion despite my repeated requests for the dissenting statement submission process to be explained.
It simply isn’t a true characterization to claim there was no dissent to any of the recommendations and the record easily demonstrates this falsehood. It does not serve ICANN to attempt to create such a false picture of unanimity on all issues in the report. The report should be able to withstand a single dissent, which deserves to be recorded for Chartering Organization consideration, despite what the drafters (whoever they are) claim. This misrepresentation needs to be fixed or the veracity of everything else in the report is in doubt as well.
Robin
On Dec 1, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Appendix A has been updated with your minority viewpoint. It is reflected on the Public Comment page that the document has been updated as of 1 December 2015.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propos...
Thanks, Hillary _ _ -- *Hillary Jett* Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>
From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:07 PM To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> Cc: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT 21-day Public Comment Is Live
Dear Hilary,
I note that my dissenting opinion was sent on 29 November and was not included in the report upon the report’s publication on 1 December.
Moreover, the report has incorrectly stated that there are no dissenting opinions, however the chairs acknowledged this dissenting opinion during the CCWG meeting on 2 November. Why did the report knowingly make a false statement about no dissent and why has the dissenting opinion still not been included with the report? I find the delay in fixing this to be unacceptable. If ICANN can’t even be trusted to honestly report on the accountability recommendations, we really have our work cut out for us.
Robin
Begin forwarded message:
*From: *Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> *Date: *November 29, 2015 at 3:40:45 PM PST *To: *Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> *Cc: *León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> *Subject: **Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report*
Thanks, Thomas. See below.
*Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG)*
The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an “advisory” role to a “decision making” role over fundamental matters at ICANN, including its governance. Consequently the proposal marginalizes the role of Supporting Organizations (SO’s) compared to today’s ICANN governance structure. The degree of governmental empowerment over ICANN resulting from the proposal’s community mechanism is dangerous to the success of the proposal’s political acceptance as well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet.
The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing power balance between SO’s and AC’s as determined by relative board appointments. Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates the AC’s relative to the SO’s compared with today’s balance on ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within the SO’s mandate. The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in ICANN’s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing SO’s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report. The community mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the various SO’s and AC’s, and the dangers inherent in changing those roles with a “one size fits all” approach to critical decision making.
Additionally, I object to the proposed departure from ICANN’s typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for CCWG-Accountability. The 3rd report’s public comment only allows for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public comment period for a report of this significance and with so many important changes since previous drafts.
Robin Gross
On Nov 29, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote:
Dear Robin, as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received.
Best, Thomas
--- rickert.net <http://rickert.net/>
Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>:
> Dear Co-Chairs, > > I have still not received a response to this request. What is > the process for submitting minority statements? Please advise. > > Thanks, > Robin > > >> On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org >> <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: >> >> Dear Co-Chairs, >> >> Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for >> ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report >> [of the executive summary]? >> >> Thank you, >> Robin >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> wrote:
Hi Robin,
Thank you for the note. We will be updating the Appendix tomorrow with minority statements received since 29 November.
Best, Hillary
-- *Hillary Jett* Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>
From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Date: Monday, November 30, 2015 at 9:21 PM To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> Cc: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>)" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT 21-day Public Comment Is Live
Thanks, but the report still incorrectly states that there are no minority opinions. Why hasn’t the NCSG dissenting opinion been posted or acknowledged in the report? Please fix this incorrect information and omission of a dissenting opinion from the report’s publication.
Robin
On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>> wrote:
Hello all,
The 21-day public comment period of the CCWG-Accountability Draft Work Stream 1 Recommendations has just been posted here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201.... The comment period will run from November 30 through 23:59 UTC on December 21.
We hope to begin receiving translations in the next 12-14 days.
Thank you! Hillary
-- *Hillary Jett* Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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
I have to agree with Robin on her process objection. Eberhard’s objection has been known long time as has Robin’s. To say that the report received consensus report without qualifying that to say less than full consensus is misleading at best. And to say that no objections have been recorded is either hyper-technical (i.e. not recorded as we demanded they be recorded) or simply wrong since I have an entire folder filled with Eberhard’s objections and those of may others – some of which receded to be sure, but still … Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2015 4:02 PM To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT 21-day Public Comment Is Live Thanks, Hilary, but Appendix A still contains a big falsehood that should be corrected. It says: “As of 29 November 2015, the proposal has received the consensus support of the CCWG-Accountability with no objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering Organization consideration.” NCSG’s objection and dissent was noted for the record on 2 November (as was Eberhard’s objection) and the specific text of my opinion was sent on 29 November, although no deadline was provided for its inclusion despite my repeated requests for the dissenting statement submission process to be explained. It simply isn’t a true characterization to claim there was no dissent to any of the recommendations and the record easily demonstrates this falsehood. It does not serve ICANN to attempt to create such a false picture of unanimity on all issues in the report. The report should be able to withstand a single dissent, which deserves to be recorded for Chartering Organization consideration, despite what the drafters (whoever they are) claim. This misrepresentation needs to be fixed or the veracity of everything else in the report is in doubt as well. Robin On Dec 1, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org> > wrote: Hi Robin, Appendix A has been updated with your minority viewpoint. It is reflected on the Public Comment page that the document has been updated as of 1 December 2015. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propos... Thanks, Hillary -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org> From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:07 PM To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org> > Cc: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> >, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> )" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> >, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT 21-day Public Comment Is Live Dear Hilary, I note that my dissenting opinion was sent on 29 November and was not included in the report upon the report’s publication on 1 December. Moreover, the report has incorrectly stated that there are no dissenting opinions, however the chairs acknowledged this dissenting opinion during the CCWG meeting on 2 November. Why did the report knowingly make a false statement about no dissent and why has the dissenting opinion still not been included with the report? I find the delay in fixing this to be unacceptable. If ICANN can’t even be trusted to honestly report on the accountability recommendations, we really have our work cut out for us. Robin Begin forwarded message: From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > Date: November 29, 2015 at 3:40:45 PM PST To: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> > Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> >, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> )" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> >, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report Thanks, Thomas. See below. Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG) The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an “advisory” role to a “decision making” role over fundamental matters at ICANN, including its governance. Consequently the proposal marginalizes the role of Supporting Organizations (SO’s) compared to today’s ICANN governance structure. The degree of governmental empowerment over ICANN resulting from the proposal’s community mechanism is dangerous to the success of the proposal’s political acceptance as well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet. The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing power balance between SO’s and AC’s as determined by relative board appointments. Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates the AC’s relative to the SO’s compared with today’s balance on ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within the SO’s mandate. The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in ICANN’s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing SO’s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report. The community mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the various SO’s and AC’s, and the dangers inherent in changing those roles with a “one size fits all” approach to critical decision making. Additionally, I object to the proposed departure from ICANN’s typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for CCWG-Accountability. The 3rd report’s public comment only allows for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public comment period for a report of this significance and with so many important changes since previous drafts. Robin Gross On Nov 29, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> > wrote: Dear Robin, as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will be included in the report as appendices if and when they are received. Best, Thomas --- rickert.net <http://rickert.net/> Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> >: Dear Co-Chairs, I have still not received a response to this request. What is the process for submitting minority statements? Please advise. Thanks, Robin On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > wrote: Dear Co-Chairs, Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and process for ensuring that minority statements will be included in the report [of the executive summary]? Thank you, Robin _______________________________________________ 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 On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org> > wrote: Hi Robin, Thank you for the note. We will be updating the Appendix tomorrow with minority statements received since 29 November. Best, Hillary -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org> From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > Date: Monday, November 30, 2015 at 9:21 PM To: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org> > Cc: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> >, "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> )" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> >, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT 21-day Public Comment Is Live Thanks, but the report still incorrectly states that there are no minority opinions. Why hasn’t the NCSG dissenting opinion been posted or acknowledged in the report? Please fix this incorrect information and omission of a dissenting opinion from the report’s publication. Robin On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org> > wrote: Hello all, The 21-day public comment period of the CCWG-Accountability Draft Work Stream 1 Recommendations has just been posted here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201.... The comment period will run from November 30 through 23:59 UTC on December 21. We hope to begin receiving translations in the next 12-14 days. Thank you! Hillary -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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
Hi While I appreciate that the WG is under significant time constraints holding both webinars one day after the announcement of the comment period is far to early. Is it not possible to postpone these so that interested parties have time to get the webinars in their calendars at least skim the proposal? Matthew On 01/12/2015 02:06, Hillary Jett wrote:
Hello all,
The 21-day public comment period of the CCWG-Accountability Draft Work Stream 1 Recommendations has just been posted here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201.... The comment period will run from November 30 through 23:59 UTC on December 21.
We hope to begin receiving translations in the next 12-14 days.
Thank you! Hillary
-- *Hillary Jett* Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Hi Mathew, thanks for your note. We have intentionally scheduled the webinars early to make access to the report and our recommendations easier for interested parties. Personally, I would be more than happy to offer more webinars a bit later. Best, Thomas
Am 01.12.2015 um 13:10 schrieb Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org>:
Hi
While I appreciate that the WG is under significant time constraints holding both webinars one day after the announcement of the comment period is far to early. Is it not possible to postpone these so that interested parties have time to get the webinars in their calendars at least skim the proposal?
Matthew
On 01/12/2015 02:06, Hillary Jett wrote:
Hello all,
The 21-day public comment period of the CCWG-Accountability Draft Work Stream 1 Recommendations has just been posted here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201... <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201...>. The comment period will run from November 30 through 23:59 UTC on December 21.
We hope to begin receiving translations in the next 12-14 days.
Thank you! Hillary
-- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
--
Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org> + 44 771 247 2987 <https://www.avast.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-ema...> This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Hillary, Thank you to Alice, Grace and yourself and other ICANN staff in this huge effort. Like many, I am simply overwhelmed (and not focusing on the fee paying day job). I ran off/ was reading the draft dated 20 November with the last Annex 11 Recommendation -11 committing to further Accountability work WS2. Can u explain what additions/ amendments/ annexes have been added to get to the final version for PC. Thanks, Phil From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears Sent: 01 December 2015 12:10 To: Hillary Jett; CCWG-Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-ACCT 21-day Public Comment Is Live Hi While I appreciate that the WG is under significant time constraints holding both webinars one day after the announcement of the comment period is far to early. Is it not possible to postpone these so that interested parties have time to get the webinars in their calendars at least skim the proposal? Matthew On 01/12/2015 02:06, Hillary Jett wrote: Hello all, The 21-day public comment period of the CCWG-Accountability Draft Work Stream 1 Recommendations has just been posted here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201 5-11-30-en. The comment period will run from November 30 through 23:59 UTC on December 21. We hope to begin receiving translations in the next 12-14 days. Thank you! Hillary -- Hillary Jett Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett@icann.org _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 <https://www.avast.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-em ail&utm_content=emailclient> This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. <https://www.avast.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-em ail&utm_content=emailclient> www.avast.com
Hillary, please find enclosed, in PDF, my Minority Opinion as per the Charter. greetings, el On 2015-12-01 04:06, Hillary Jett wrote:
Hello all,
The 21-day public comment period of the CCWG-Accountability Draft Work Stream 1 Recommendations has just been posted here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201.... The comment period will run from November 30 through 23:59 UTC on December 21.
We hope to begin receiving translations in the next 12-14 days.
Thank you! Hillary [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
participants (9)
-
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Hillary Jett -
Matthew Shears -
Nigel Roberts -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Buckingham -
Robin Gross -
Thomas Rickert