This is an *Excellent* suggestion in my humble opinion Ed... *Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ... *(CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr [image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me] <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> On 10 April 2015 at 11:03, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
Roelof,
I share your concern and like you I'm not going to be able to attend every general, subgroup and sub-subgroup meeting going forward. We all have lives away from ICANN and invariably there are going to be times when other aspects of our existence need to take priority. I'm just amazed and very grateful that there are those who are able to volunteer and donate such an incredible amount of time to our joint effort. This is an exceptional group of people.
I'm very happy that our immediate deadline was shifted from early to late April at the Istanbul meeting. It helped. I too wish we could go forward at an even more reasoned and considered pace. I can't attend the meeting tonight or, frankly, a few other nights where they have been scheduled. I'm committed to this project but I'm also committed to attending my own birthday party later this month. I sort of need to be there for that. So be it. Our CCWG is not operating in isolation and I do understand the need for a tight deadline. I don't like it, but I do understand it.
I do have one request, though, that would allow me to participate in as complete a manner as I can going forward given my own circumstances. Would it be possible, even at additional cost, to have staff or contracted help to produce complete transcripts of the CCWG and WP sessions on a maximum 24 hour turnaround (or something approaching that)? My concern is that those of us who can't be at every meeting would either not participate in future sessions we could attend, feeling we weren't up to date on matters, or, even worse, would drag down future proceedings as we tried to understand that which we missed. Audio recordings are nice, but time consuming. Fast track transcripts, I think, could help alleviate some problems caused by the intensive work schedule.
Thanks for considering,
Ed
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
Dear co-chairs, dear all,
I find myself in agreement with Eberhard with regard to the steep increase in the number of calls for both the CCWG as well as its subgroups like wp1 and acct-legal.
It frustrates me to see that, after a period during which we burned a lot of time on -let me politely phrase it as „less relevant and/or out of scope”- subjects and several of us warned against the deadline becoming unreachable, we have know replaced the deadline that has become unrealistic with a work planning that is simply absurd.
As a result, we now have roughly a two hour conference call every day of the week, several days with two calls, and thus more calls in a week at unholy hours. I object to this way of working, as it makes the whole process far less inclusive. Many of us have both a demanding job as well as a private life, both of which we cherish. For me it is now simply unavoidable to miss a significant part of the calls and impossible to deal with all the necessary working groups’ work in-between them. I know that this is now the case for quite a number of us.
We are rushing forward to reach a deadline which is nothing more by now than a dead line, and in our hurry seem to accept that the process loses inclusiveness, transparency and accountability, leaving us with an outcome that will be of much lower quality.
I for one, find this unacceptable.
Best regards,
Roelof A. Meijer CEO
SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer@sidn.nl | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/>
On 08-04-15 14:15, "Dr Eberhard Lisse" <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you very much.
so next week 3 calls (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, the latter of which I could not make even if I wanted to (see below))?
The following week another three (Monday, and 2 on Tuesday)?
More than one call per week is already difficult enough to absorb, but three? And then two on one day? When we are already spending too much time on process and very little on substance?
This is not conducive to thoughtful deliberation and as I have said numerous times I am opposed to rushing things through just because of a perceived deadline, which in our case does not even exist in reality.
I object to this.
And while we are at it, I have asked NUMEROUS times to have the legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root and/or the IANA function researched by our legal advisers. I was told it would be done, but it has not from what I can see and my repeated requests in this regards have been ignored by the Co-Chairs.
I have made several requests/suggestions in how to deal with the GAO, which the Co-Chairs do not agree with. Be that as it may, I reserve the rights to communicate my thoughts to the GAO as they have explicitly requested/suggested.
I have extremely serious concerns about at least the passage of the German collaborative white paper (or whatever it is called), which as far as ccTLDs are concerned is totally our of order and unacceptable, in as much it suggests that ccTLD/ccNSO policy being taken over by governments (which as we all know is opposed to the USG's stated intent.
The GAC Representative of Denmark has proposed in Istanbul during the ad-hoc Stress Test Breakfast, what I understand to be a total removal of ccNSO's policy making powers, in favor of governments deciding. Using the words "Out with the Old" he stated that the RFCs must be done away with. I am not clear whether this is the position of the Representative, his government or the GAC, but when read together with the above, this is not acceptable to me.
I have not that many concerns with regards to Delegation of a ccTLD (after establishment), including a Transfer of an exsiting ccTLD.
But as far as Revocation of an incumbent ccTLD Manager is concerned, I have stated numerous times, that we need to preserve the existing rights of incumbent ccTLD Managers.
This is NOT negotiable.
And the best way of doing this is by way of the Framework of Interpretation Principles.
Mr Chehade has apparently in public (and on the record) accused senior ccTLD managers of not knowing how the IANA functions work. As a ccTLD Manager with 24 years uninterrupted service I tend to agree that I do not know how the IANA function is operated by the current Function Manager (ICANN), though I do have a really good idea how it SHOULD be operated.
Therefor I have requested that Mr Chehade explain to us how this works. I can not find any feedback on this issue.
Unless these issues are addressed to my satisfaction (and I am not saying that they must be resolved necessarily to my satisfaction) I shall, as a ccNSO appointed member, be formally objecting to any output of the CCWG-Accountability.
I am circulating this to the usual ccTLD lists as well.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-08 12:10, Brenda Brewer wrote:
Hi Eberhard,
Please see attachment in pdf format.
Best, Brenda [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.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