I suggest that we should discuss this issue on the next Council call. I was previously unaware of Dr Lisse’s concerns as I am not currently subscribed to the Members list (see previous trail of emails re Councillors email list subscriptions). Kind regards, Lesley On 6 May 2015, at 10:16, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Fellow-Councillors
I am becoming increasingly concerned about the road that the IANA transition is taking, and in particular, the fundamental issue of Accountability.
I, as have other council members, have had the privilege on working with Dr Lisse on the Delegation WG and the Framework of Interpretation. Under Keith's chairmanship we fully explored and respected differing viewpoints, and did not need to resort to ad hominem complaints at any time.
I have also had the dubious privilege of reading the CCWG email list traffic as the WG has gone about its work. It makes me sad, that having worked in a successful WG, that this equally important topic cannot be run in a similar way.
Colleagues, from all I see, Dr Lisse's concerns are accurate, albeit expressed in his "usual charming bedside manner".
The Charter of the WG DOES appear to be being ignored. Deadlines DO appear to be being imposed artificially and unilaterally.
In Westmister Parliaments, there is a controversial procedure used by Governments known as a "Guillotine motion" in order to restrict debate and force through Government business and the Government view.
For example, in Canada, see http://www.parl.gc.ca/procedure-book-livre/document.aspx?sbdid=68a2776a-f2a5...
It now emerged that that ICANN can Guillotine the Public accountability discussion, without consulting other CCWG membersm, merely on the say-so of two staff members who are not named. This is quite wrong, in my view. But even if it were right (which it is not) the PERCEPTION is all wrong. It fails 'the smell test'. It's well, UNACCOUNTABILITY.
To my mind, the road ICANN is taking is leading me to seeking a meeting with my government with a view to asking them to make formal representations to NTIA that ICANN do not appear to be proposing the required accountability measures to permit transition.
If they can't be accountable when proposing accountability measures, they sure as eggs are eggs won't be accountable once they've got complete control.
To my mind, we need to be showing the sort of leadership that won us the ccNSO in its present form, in 2000-2005.
Thoughts? Any suggestions on what Council, and the ccTLD community should be doing? We should CERTAINLY be looking to discuss this deeply in BA.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ccnso-members] Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1) Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 09:24:25 +0100 From: Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na> Reply-To: el@lisse.na Organization: Dr Eberhard W Lisse To: ccnso-members@icann.org, cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org, cctldworld@icann.org CC: accountability-cross-community@icann.org, directors@omadhina.net
Dear Byron, Dear Colleagues,
it is unfortunate that Mr Weill now becomes emotional.
The Charter clearly states:
Section V: Rules of Engagement
Decision-Making Methodologies:
In developing its Proposal(s), work plan and any other reports, the CCWG-Accountability shall seek to act by consensus. Consensus calls should always make best efforts to involve all members (the CCWG-Accountability or sub-working group). The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:
a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection
b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree
In the absence of Full Consensus, the Chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report.
I do not see any room for ambiguity here ("any other reports", "involve all members", "designating each position" minority viewpoints "shall be included in the report")
I most certainly not have filed countless objections (the Co-Chairs were probably too busy ignoring them rather than them) and most certainly not "since it started".
I have diligently participated and most constructively which was stated by all three Co-Chairs (when it suited them, obviously) during and after the Frankfurt and Istanbul meetings.
I have however since Singapore come to believe that we are doing this wrong and have voiced this in Singapore repeatedly.
My objections mainly concern two issues, namely the refusal to deal with the fundamental issues of IANA/ICANN accountability.
And the process ie the rushing to an arbitrary deadline without careful consideration. As a member of the FoI Wg I have participated in what must be considered the yardstick on thorough and considered review and debate.
It is telling that instead of dealing with the substance of my concerns, innuendo and allegation are being used. As if it was ok to do whatever one wants to but it was not ok to talk about it.
Sadness indeed.
I strongly urge ccTLD Managers to soundly reject this rubbish "report" which tinkers on the surface, with the effect of tossing ccTLD Managers a few bones on issues that don't concern them really, and to demand that the fundamental questions that affect us ccTLD Managers are asked and answered.
greetings, el
On 2015-05-06 06:44, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Byron, Dear Colleagues,
To set the record straight, Dr Lisse's statements about the violation of the CCWG Accountability Charter and the dynamics of the group are a misrepresentation of facts. Speaking of facts, we are more than happy to provide details in response to the accusations as well as explanations we gave to Dr Lisse on the public mailing list, to support our statement.
We would also note for the benefit of readers of these lists that Dr Lisse has filed countless objections against almost everything the CCWG did since it started. Participants and members of the CCWG have expressed to the co-chairs that they consider Dr Lisse's behaviour as an attempt to discredit the work of fellow volunteers and derail the work of the group.
We will not burden everyone on the lists that were cc-ed with details, especially when we have the opportunity to discuss and engage on substance. But we wanted to set this record straight, and express our deep sadness about the use of such a process within the ccTLD community.
That being said, we encourage other ccTLD members and participants in the CCWG to express their views related to the substance of the proposals.
Best, Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill, co-chairs [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/