- Ccnso-council - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Third Draft Proposal
by Nigel Roberts Dec. 22, 2015

Dec. 22, 2015

Dear Fellow Council Members We will be discussing the Third Draft Proposal of the CCWG at our meeting shortly. Part of that discussion will involve the consideration of whether we, sitting as Council, may commit the ccTLD community (including non-ccNSO members) by endorsing wide-ranging changes to the structure of ICANN (including significant increased powers of the GAC over ICANN/IANA policy) as well as removal of the US Government's historic role. For those of you who have not followed the intense debates in the CCWG list, it will be important to understand the context we are in, and to have read the 300 pages or so, of the proposal carefully, since major changes to ICANN's structure are proposed therein. In the meantime, the below email from Prof Mueller ought to be taken seriously into account, particularly where he describes the 'major controversy' in the WG list. We must also have in mind the two different Minority Reports from CCWG members Robin Gross and Eberhard Lisse, and the Comments of CCWG members Paul Rosensweig and Brett Schaefer in which they comment that "the entire process by which the Draft Proposal was crThe consideration of new accountability measures has been characterized by a rush to resolution under what appear to be self-imposed deadlines based on perceived political conditions. As National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has emphasized over and over again, the U.S. government “has not set any deadline for the transition.”[2] We strongly believe that it is better to get this process done right than it is to get it done on time. > > Indeed, this third CCWG-Accountability report eated calls into question the validity of the work product and its utility and representativeness". And finally, the Board's recent comments expressing significant concerns about the Draft Proposal and their re-confirmation that this needs to be done right, rather than rushed. I look forward to our discussion. Nigel Roberts > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Third Draft Proposal -- substantive Comments/Edits > Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 10:10:14 -0500 > From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> > To: 'Rosemary E. Fei' <rfei(a)adlercolvin.com>, 'Mathieu Weill' > <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr>, 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía' > <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas(a)rickert.net>, > ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org, accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > CC: 'Sidley ICANN CCWG' <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com>, 'ACCT-Staff' > <acct-staff(a)icann.org>, 'ICANN-Adler' <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com> > > > > This simply reconfirms my view that we are going too fast and that our > pace has outstripped our capacity to keep up.Â In comments we filed > earlier this week, Brett Schaeffer and I wrote the following: > To begin with, we believe that the entire process by which the Draft Proposal was created calls into question the validity of the work product and its utility and representativeness. The consideration of new accountability measures has been characterized by a rush to resolution under what appear to be self-imposed deadlines based on perceived political conditions. As National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has emphasized over and over again, the U.S. government “has not set any deadline for the transition.”[2] We strongly believe that it is better to get this process done right than it is to get it done on time. > > Indeed, this third CCWG-Accountability report to the community represents a complete revision of the proposed oversight mechanism of ICANN—yet this novel approach has not been fully vetted by the community and is now being subject to a truncated 21-day comment period, with the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs urging all commentators to preferentially submit their comments through their supporting organizations and advisory committees (SOs and ACs). > > We reject that limitation. This novel proposal still has many open questions that require answers. Indeed, even as we write this comment a vibrant debate continues to occur on the CCWG-Accountability discussion list over exactly how, if at all, the proposed revised Mission Statement will effect existing contractual obligations. This week, it was suggested that this legal question be certified to outside lawyers for answers even though that fundamental question must be answered before the transition moves forward. The Board also submitted detailed comments this week (discussed further below) on the Draft Proposal that, if accepted by the community, would reflect a further fundamental transformation of the accountability proposals.[3] > > We recognize that uncertainty about certain specifics in the Draft Proposal during the public comment period may aid in moving the process forward in order to meet a predetermined timeline. But that ambiguity is a critical failure that raises questions about the legitimacy of the CCWG-Accountability process. Moreover, the specific language of new and amended bylaws to implement outlined reforms of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) remains at the conceptual stage and has yet to be drafted by CCWG-Accountability legal advisers. Asking the community to give its final support or opposition to an incomplete product is unacceptable. > > According to the chairs of the CCWG-Accountability, “The CCWG-Accountability considers this Draft Proposal to be the Final proposal unless significant concerns are raised by Chartering Organizations. As the case may be, the CCWG-Accountability might then amend the proposal to address these and post a supplementary report for approval by the Chartering Organizations.”[4] Thus, even though there may be a number of significant objections and concerns raised by individuals, civil society, and businesses during this public comment, there are no plans for another draft to be opened for public comment. > > We urge individual members of the ICANN community along with the SOs and ACs to demand that this document be treated as a provisional draft until all outstanding issues are settled, including specific language for bylaw revisions, and instruct the CCWG-Accountability to provide a final draft for public comment that incorporates comments on the Draft Proposal from the ICANN community, the chartering organizations, and the Board of Directors. In our judgment, these process flaws are so significant that the community should insist that final approval of the transition be deferred to ICANN 56. More to the point, if unremedied, these process flaws alone are sufficient for us to urge rejection of the transition, notwithstanding our substantive views on the merits of the transition proposal. > > That, it seems to me, is ineluctably correct. Under the current flawed process the result cannot stand as a reflection of our good work. > > > > Paul > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com > > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 > > Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 > > Link to my PGP Key > > > _____________________________ > > The information in this e-mail message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at rfei(a)adlercolvin.com, and delete all copies of this message and its attachments, if any. Thank you. > > Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email. > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > From: Mueller, Milton L <milton(a)gatech.edu> > To: Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory(a)sidley.com>, Accountability Cross > Community (accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org) > <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, Mathieu Weill > <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía > <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>, ACCT-Staff > > Dear Holly and Rosemary: > > Dear CCWG, Co-Chairs and ICANN Staff, > It has been brought to our attention that our comments on the Third > Draft Proposal have been misunderstood by some to indicate that we are > critical of the Draft. Our intent was simply to help to assure that the > Final Proposal is the highest quality reflection of the solid efforts of > the CCWG to date by pointing out where we thought some clarification > would be helpful to an unfamiliar reader and to the eventual bylaw > drafting effort. > > MM: I do not think anyone suggested that your comments were critical of > the substance of the draft, or of the CCWG, or of anyoneâs motives. > You did, however, point out that there was a need for clarification > where the draft may not have reflected the intent of the CCWG. You duly > made some quite reasonable suggestions to fix the problems. These > suggestions were not reflected in the draft. Those are simple facts. > > Some of those changes were pretty important; e.g., changing âthe > interests of the corporationâ to âthe global public interestâ > determined via a bottom up MS process. > > As you surely know, there is a major controversy on this list. Many of > us believe the co-chairs are responding to the time pressure (about > which they have legitimate concerns) by rushing things through to meet > an arbitrary date target and not giving due consideration to public > comments or even to the kind of changes you suggested. Thereâs no way > around it: Rosemaryâs message pretty much confirmed those > concerns. This doesnât say anything about motives and is not a > personal criticism of anyone. It simply calls our attention to the costs > of rushing. So, thanks for reiterating your proposed editorial changes > and I hope they are incorporated this time. > > Dr. Milton L. Mueller > > Professor, School of Public Policy > > Georgia Institute of Technology >

1 1

CENTR Comment on 3rd draft proposal ccWG Accountability
by Peter Van Roste Dec. 21, 2015

Dec. 21, 2015

Dear Council members, Please find the CENTR comment on the 3rd draft proposal attached. Best Regards, Peter [cid:image001.png@01D13C17.F732A1E0] Peter Van Roste General Manager CENTR - Belliardstraat 20, 1040 Brussels, Belgium tel +32 2 627 5550 - fax +32 2 627 5559 www.centr.org<http://www.centr.org/> - twitter: centrnews

1 0

FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Third Draft Proposal -- substantive Comments/Edits
by Stephen Deerhake Dec. 21, 2015

Dec. 21, 2015

This post to the CCWG list is an abridged version of the entire Rosenzweig/Schaeffer comment referenced in my prior post to the Council list that captures the points in their more detailed post to the CCWG Accountability public comment section. Best Regards, Stephen Deerhake American Samoa (.as) From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015 10:10 AM To: 'Rosemary E. Fei' <rfei(a)adlercolvin.com>; 'Mathieu Weill' <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr>; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía' <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>; 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas(a)rickert.net>; ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Cc: 'Sidley ICANN CCWG' <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com>; 'ACCT-Staff' <acct-staff(a)icann.org>; 'ICANN-Adler' <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Third Draft Proposal -- substantive Comments/Edits This simply reconfirms my view that we are going too fast and that our pace has outstripped our capacity to keep up. In comments we filed earlier this week, Brett Schaeffer and I wrote the following: To begin with, we believe that the entire process by which the Draft Proposal was created calls into question the validity of the work product and its utility and representativeness. The consideration of new accountability measures has been characterized by a rush to resolution under what appear to be self-imposed deadlines based on perceived political conditions. As National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has emphasized over and over again, the U.S. government “has not set any deadline for the transition.”[2] <http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/12/comment-on-the-ccwg-accoun…> We strongly believe that it is better to get this process done right than it is to get it done on time. Indeed, this third CCWG-Accountability report to the community represents a complete revision of the proposed oversight mechanism of ICANN—yet this novel approach has not been fully vetted by the community and is now being subject to a truncated 21-day comment period, with the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs urging all commentators to preferentially submit their comments through their supporting organizations and advisory committees (SOs and ACs). We reject that limitation. This novel proposal still has many open questions that require answers. Indeed, even as we write this comment a vibrant debate continues to occur on the CCWG-Accountability discussion list over exactly how, if at all, the proposed revised Mission Statement will effect existing contractual obligations. This week, it was suggested that this legal question be certified to outside lawyers for answers even though that fundamental question must be answered before the transition moves forward. The Board also submitted detailed comments this week (discussed further below) on the Draft Proposal that, if accepted by the community, would reflect a further fundamental transformation of the accountability proposals.[3] <http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/12/comment-on-the-ccwg-accoun…> We recognize that uncertainty about certain specifics in the Draft Proposal during the public comment period may aid in moving the process forward in order to meet a predetermined timeline. But that ambiguity is a critical failure that raises questions about the legitimacy of the CCWG-Accountability process. Moreover, the specific language of new and amended bylaws to implement outlined reforms of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) remains at the conceptual stage and has yet to be drafted by CCWG-Accountability legal advisers. Asking the community to give its final support or opposition to an incomplete product is unacceptable. According to the chairs of the CCWG-Accountability, “The CCWG-Accountability considers this Draft Proposal to be the Final proposal unless significant concerns are raised by Chartering Organizations. As the case may be, the CCWG-Accountability might then amend the proposal to address these and post a supplementary report for approval by the Chartering Organizations.”[4] <http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/12/comment-on-the-ccwg-accoun…> Thus, even though there may be a number of significant objections and concerns raised by individuals, civil society, and businesses during this public comment, there are no plans for another draft to be opened for public comment. We urge individual members of the ICANN community along with the SOs and ACs to demand that this document be treated as a provisional draft until all outstanding issues are settled, including specific language for bylaw revisions, and instruct the CCWG-Accountability to provide a final draft for public comment that incorporates comments on the Draft Proposal from the ICANN community, the chartering organizations, and the Board of Directors. In our judgment, these process flaws are so significant that the community should insist that final approval of the transition be deferred to ICANN 56. More to the point, if unremedied, these process flaws alone are sufficient for us to urge rejection of the transition, notwithstanding our substantive views on the merits of the transition proposal. That, it seems to me, is ineluctably correct. Under the current flawed process the result cannot stand as a reflection of our good work. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig(a)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=articl…> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=em…> From: Rosemary E. Fei [mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com] Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015 12:10 AM To: Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> ) <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> >; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> ) <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> >; Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >; ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> ; Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> ) <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com> ) <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com> >; ACCT-Staff (acct-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> ) <acct-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> >; ICANN-Adler <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com> > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Third Draft Proposal -- substantive Comments/Edits Dear CCWG: To confirm our comprehension of the CCWG’s decisions on the many changes from the Second to the Third Proposal, we reviewed the Third Proposal as published. In doing so, we noted points where the language in the Third Proposal does not unambiguously reflect our current substantive understanding of the CCWG’s intent. In our comments on the Third Proposal draft, we suggested edits on many of these points which were not accepted, so perhaps we have misunderstood the intent. As to other points, we don’t have a clear understanding of the CCWG’s intent. In either case, we would like clarification. In the attached table you will find our joint substantive comments on the Third Proposal as published. As we approach the implementation stage, we would welcome an opportunity to discuss any of our comments that raise questions or concerns, to ensure we know what we’re asked to implement. We also hope these comments may be useful to clarify the final proposal for the general reader. To make the volume of our comments more manageable, we are sending staff separately our comments on the Third Proposal that raise only non-substantive issues. Holly and Rosemary Rosemary E. Fei Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) rfei(a)adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> www.adlercolvin.com <http://www.adlercolvin.com> _____________________________ The information in this e-mail message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at rfei(a)adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei@adlercolvin.com> , and delete all copies of this message and its attachments, if any. Thank you. Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.

1 0

Rosenzweig/Schaefer comments on the CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal
by Stephen Deerhake Dec. 21, 2015

Dec. 21, 2015

I refer fellow Council members to the following comment on the CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n ov15/pdfjwiMvw6xUZ.pdf Best Regards, Stephen Deerhake American Samoa (.as)

1 0

REMINDER: Special ccNSO Council call - 23 December @12:00 UTC
by Kimberly Carlson Dec. 21, 2015

Dec. 21, 2015

Dear all, This is a reminder of this week's Special ccNSO Council meeting on Wednesday, @12:00 UTC. Please find the dial in details below: Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 5258 Adobe Room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ccnsocouncil/ Two-way audio will be available on the Adobe Room. If you are unable to attend, please let us know as soon as possible. Kind regards,

1 0

2016 ICANN Nominating Committee: ICANN Leadership Positions
by Kimberly Carlson Dec. 21, 2015

Dec. 21, 2015

Apply Now for ICANN Leadership Positions: Deadline is 20 March 2016 Date: 17 December 2015 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers' (ICANN) Nominating Committee (NomCom) invites interested individuals to submit applications and/or to recommend candidates for ICANN's key leadership positions. Applications are invited for the following positions: * Three members of the ICANN Board of Directors* * Two At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) representatives (one each from the Europe and North America regions) * One member of the Council of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * One member of the Council of the Country-Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) For the more details and to see the entire announcement (see: https://www.icann.org/nomcom2016)

1 0

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Third Draft Proposal -- substantive Comments/Edits
by Chris Disspain Dec. 20, 2015

Dec. 20, 2015

FYI. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo(a)auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator Begin forwarded message: > From: "Rosemary E. Fei" <rfei(a)adlercolvin.com> > Date: 20 December 2015 at 16:10:23 GMT+11 > To: "Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr)" <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx) <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>, "ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org" <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org>, "Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org)" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > Cc: "Sidley ICANN CCWG \(sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com\)" <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com>, "ACCT-Staff \(acct-staff(a)icann.org\)" <acct-staff(a)icann.org>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com> > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Third Draft Proposal -- substantive Comments/Edits > > Dear CCWG: > > To confirm our comprehension of the CCWG’s decisions on the many changes from the Second to the Third Proposal, we reviewed the Third Proposal as published. In doing so, we noted points where the language in the Third Proposal does not unambiguously reflect our current substantive understanding of the CCWG’s intent. In our comments on the Third Proposal draft, we suggested edits on many of these points which were not accepted, so perhaps we have misunderstood the intent. As to other points, we don’t have a clear understanding of the CCWG’s intent. In either case, we would like clarification. > > In the attached table you will find our joint substantive comments on the Third Proposal as published. As we approach the implementation stage, we would welcome an opportunity to discuss any of our comments that raise questions or concerns, to ensure we know what we’re asked to implement. We also hope these comments may be useful to clarify the final proposal for the general reader. > > To make the volume of our comments more manageable, we are sending staff separately our comments on the Third Proposal that raise only non-substantive issues. > > Holly and Rosemary > > Rosemary E. Fei > Adler & Colvin > 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 > San Francisco, CA 94104 > 415/421-7555 (phone) > 415/421-0712 (fax) > rfei(a)adlercolvin.com > www.adlercolvin.com > > _____________________________ > The information in this e-mail message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at rfei(a)adlercolvin.com, and delete all copies of this message and its attachments, if any. Thank you. > Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email. > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

51-2015: Release of Country and Territory Names within the .STUDY, .COURSES, .LAMBORGHINI, XN--3OQ18VL8PN36A, .VOLKSWAGEN, .BUGATTI, .AUDI and .DELTA TLDs
by Gabriella Schittek Dec. 17, 2015

Dec. 17, 2015

Dear Councillors, Please, let me know by the end of Monday, 21 December in case you do not agree with Triage recommendation 51-2015: Release of Country and Territory Names within the .STUDY, .COURSES, .LAMBORGHINI, XN--3OQ18VL8PN36A, .VOLKSWAGEN, .BUGATTI, .AUDI and .DELTA TLDs Thanks, Gabi > > > == > Topic: 51-2015: Release of Country and Territory Names within the .STUDY, > .COURSES, .LAMBORGHINI, XN--3OQ18VL8PN36A, .VOLKSWAGEN, .BUGATTI, .AUDI and > .DELTA TLDs > > Originator: ICANN > > Summary of request: Eight Registry operators have requested amendments to > their Registry Agreements. These amendments would allow the registration of > country and territory names at all levels in .STUDY, .COURSES, .LAMBORGHINI, > XN--3OQ18VL8PN36A, .VOLKSWAGEN, .BUGATTI, .AUDI and .DELTA TLDs. > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-15-en > > Date received: 16 December 2015 > > Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: 27 January 2016 > > Recommended action, if any: No Action > > Expertise needed, if any: Legal > > Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: Low > > >

1 0

Re: [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Re: [ccnso-council] Board comments on CCWG Proposal
by Mike Silber Dec. 17, 2015

Dec. 17, 2015

Hi Jordan On 16/12/2015 05:44, "Jordan Carter" <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> wrote: >> >> > > I have to assume that this comment comes from the fact you haven't engaged all > through the CCWG's process. I have in fact engaged throughout. As the CCWG has preferred, I have observed primarily and not been as vocal as some others. The major benefit is that I could reserve judgement and not leap to a conclusion and then feel honour bound to defend it. > > I'd encourage all of us to display some confidence in the multistakeholder > process we're all engaged with, and specifically that words which rightly or > wrongly can be read as suggesting a lack of such confidence, or a rubbishing > of the quality or integrity of its outputs, be avoided? Wise words indeed. However I would remind you that one of the joys of the multistakeholder process is that I am entitled to my opinion. I would also remind you that words cut both ways and I have been on calls, watched the chat, read the mailings lists that almost hurt my feelings as someone who has devoted quite a bit of his time to this organisation and community. Then I laughed and moved on. Mike

1 0

Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Our timetable -- some personal observations
by Nigel Roberts Dec. 16, 2015

Dec. 16, 2015

Dear Fellow Councillors The attached submission from Paul Rosenzweig appears to be of direct interest in our consideration of the Third Draft. Nigel Roberts -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Our timetable -- some personal observations Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 14:41:16 -0500 From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> To: 'Malcolm Hutty' <malcolm(a)linx.net>, 'Jordan Carter' <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz>, 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Malcolm is, of course, completely correct. The Board's last minute effort to play the GPI card is an effort to cow the Co-Chairs into adopting their views as a way of avoiding further delay. As Malcolm says, however, if the CCWG accedes to those demands it risks losing the support of many individuals and perhaps even some chartering organizations. My own recommendation is that the Chartering Organizations withhold their support pending not only close of the public comment period but also a determination by the Co-Chairs as to how they intend to proceed. If the Co-Chairs choose to modify the Third Proposal in response to the Board and if they do so without futher engagement and public comment that process foul, by itself, would be grounds for the Chartering Organizations to reject the proposal -- and I would strongly advocate that they do so. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key

1 0