Paul Kane has asked me to forward this to the ccNSO council. Somewhat concerning . . . What thoughts to Councillors have? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Work of CWG Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:13:19 +0000 From: pkane@cdns.net To: 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org> CC: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Quick update It is good to have our 5th member back - welcome Maarten. There are so many moving parts and the unique ccTLD position is being ignored/weakened. I proposed we had a ccTLD reps coordination call this week but Lise is busy (obviously starting her new job she is going to be busy) and Maarten is away on a skiing holiday - no reply from the others. Update - the CWG Stewardship members are being asked to review the latest transition documents in their entirety to determine if they are happy with the (revised) Accountability proposals and the updated CWG proposal to ascertain if it meets their needs in advance of our next call. For the record, the CWG's proposal has been manipulated (by whom I do not know) and some of the safeguards have been watered down. At our last call (Thursday 21st Jan) I asked that all docs for review be immediately sent to the CWG Stewardship mailing list so _all_ members (not a small subset) had the opportunity to review and make a determination if the ICANN and the PTI's obligations had been reinstated. I advised that I was willing to review the docs last weekend but the docs have NOT been published on the CWG Stewardship mailing list... so I have NOT seen the latest docs. The current strategy seems to be to work with a small subset and obscure the details (and infer acquiescence), so the transition can stay on course. For the record I am NOT in a position to lend my support to the current proposal as I do not know the details of the (current) revised proposal. Our ccTLD coordination call has been postponed and our mailing list is silent ..... :-( Best Paul
I¹m a little confused. Is there a new proposal being developed after the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal? J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> On 1/26/16, 1:44 PM, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Paul Kane has asked me to forward this to the ccNSO council.
Somewhat concerning . . .
What thoughts to Councillors have?
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Work of CWG Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:13:19 +0000 From: pkane@cdns.net To: 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org> CC: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>
Quick update
It is good to have our 5th member back - welcome Maarten. There are so many moving parts and the unique ccTLD position is being ignored/weakened.
I proposed we had a ccTLD reps coordination call this week but Lise is busy (obviously starting her new job she is going to be busy) and Maarten is away on a skiing holiday - no reply from the others.
Update - the CWG Stewardship members are being asked to review the latest transition documents in their entirety to determine if they are happy with the (revised) Accountability proposals and the updated CWG proposal to ascertain if it meets their needs in advance of our next call.
For the record, the CWG's proposal has been manipulated (by whom I do not know) and some of the safeguards have been watered down. At our last call (Thursday 21st Jan) I asked that all docs for review be immediately sent to the CWG Stewardship mailing list so _all_ members (not a small subset) had the opportunity to review and make a determination if the ICANN and the PTI's obligations had been reinstated. I advised that I was willing to review the docs last weekend but the docs have NOT been published on the CWG Stewardship mailing list... so I have NOT seen the latest docs.
The current strategy seems to be to work with a small subset and obscure the details (and infer acquiescence), so the transition can stay on course.
For the record I am NOT in a position to lend my support to the current proposal as I do not know the details of the (current) revised proposal.
Our ccTLD coordination call has been postponed and our mailing list is silent ..... :-(
Best
Paul
+1 First thing I hear about this…. Think we should know all relevant details before being able to discuss this further. Best, Peter Peter Vergote Legal & Corp. Affairs Manager +32 16 29 89 28 +32 474 790096 www.dnsbelgium.be <http://www.dnsbelgium.be/> On 26/01/16 19:52, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
I¹m a little confused. Is there a new proposal being developed after the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal?
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 1/26/16, 1:44 PM, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Paul Kane has asked me to forward this to the ccNSO council.
Somewhat concerning . . .
What thoughts to Councillors have?
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Work of CWG Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:13:19 +0000 From: pkane@cdns.net To: 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org> CC: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>
Quick update
It is good to have our 5th member back - welcome Maarten. There are so many moving parts and the unique ccTLD position is being ignored/weakened.
I proposed we had a ccTLD reps coordination call this week but Lise is busy (obviously starting her new job she is going to be busy) and Maarten is away on a skiing holiday - no reply from the others.
Update - the CWG Stewardship members are being asked to review the latest transition documents in their entirety to determine if they are happy with the (revised) Accountability proposals and the updated CWG proposal to ascertain if it meets their needs in advance of our next call.
For the record, the CWG's proposal has been manipulated (by whom I do not know) and some of the safeguards have been watered down. At our last call (Thursday 21st Jan) I asked that all docs for review be immediately sent to the CWG Stewardship mailing list so _all_ members (not a small subset) had the opportunity to review and make a determination if the ICANN and the PTI's obligations had been reinstated. I advised that I was willing to review the docs last weekend but the docs have NOT been published on the CWG Stewardship mailing list... so I have NOT seen the latest docs.
The current strategy seems to be to work with a small subset and obscure the details (and infer acquiescence), so the transition can stay on course.
For the record I am NOT in a position to lend my support to the current proposal as I do not know the details of the (current) revised proposal.
Our ccTLD coordination call has been postponed and our mailing list is silent ..... :-(
Best
Paul
I'm more than a little confused. But then, that's par for the course. I'll ask Paul if he can clarify. On 26/01/16 18:52, Burr, Becky wrote:
I¹m a little confused. Is there a new proposal being developed after the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal?
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 1/26/16, 1:44 PM, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Paul Kane has asked me to forward this to the ccNSO council.
Somewhat concerning . . .
What thoughts to Councillors have?
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Work of CWG Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:13:19 +0000 From: pkane@cdns.net To: 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org> CC: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>
Quick update
It is good to have our 5th member back - welcome Maarten. There are so many moving parts and the unique ccTLD position is being ignored/weakened.
I proposed we had a ccTLD reps coordination call this week but Lise is busy (obviously starting her new job she is going to be busy) and Maarten is away on a skiing holiday - no reply from the others.
Update - the CWG Stewardship members are being asked to review the latest transition documents in their entirety to determine if they are happy with the (revised) Accountability proposals and the updated CWG proposal to ascertain if it meets their needs in advance of our next call.
For the record, the CWG's proposal has been manipulated (by whom I do not know) and some of the safeguards have been watered down. At our last call (Thursday 21st Jan) I asked that all docs for review be immediately sent to the CWG Stewardship mailing list so _all_ members (not a small subset) had the opportunity to review and make a determination if the ICANN and the PTI's obligations had been reinstated. I advised that I was willing to review the docs last weekend but the docs have NOT been published on the CWG Stewardship mailing list... so I have NOT seen the latest docs.
The current strategy seems to be to work with a small subset and obscure the details (and infer acquiescence), so the transition can stay on course.
For the record I am NOT in a position to lend my support to the current proposal as I do not know the details of the (current) revised proposal.
Our ccTLD coordination call has been postponed and our mailing list is silent ..... :-(
Best
Paul
My level of concern, based on the paragraph beginning "For the record..." is at the "Very concerned" level... I participated in today's CCWG call. It was not encouraging from a ccTLD perspective. Nor from a Human Rights perspective. Becky Burr is doing an incredible amount of positive work there. But from what I heard/witnessed today, I have serious doubts that the output of the CCWG will, at the end of the day, be "at least as beneficial to ccTLDs" as the current relationship we (ccTLDs) have with ICANN/IANA. That Paul Kane is reporting back to our Community that the CWG proposal "...has been manipulated..." is to me really disturbing. But frankly, not that surprising. There is an "all hands on deck" push by ICANN to get this transition completed, come hell or high water, as quickly as they can. And to achieve that goal, short-cuts will no doubt be taken. I submit that it is absolute folly for us to consider (let alone endorse) anything that is not "Complete", in the usual sense of the process of having the work product under discussion finalised by those responsible for its creation. Best, /Stephen -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 1:44 PM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Cc: paul.kane@icb.co.uk Subject: [ccnso-council] Fwd: Work of CWG Paul Kane has asked me to forward this to the ccNSO council. Somewhat concerning . . . What thoughts to Councillors have? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Work of CWG Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:13:19 +0000 From: pkane@cdns.net To: 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org> CC: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Quick update It is good to have our 5th member back - welcome Maarten. There are so many moving parts and the unique ccTLD position is being ignored/weakened. I proposed we had a ccTLD reps coordination call this week but Lise is busy (obviously starting her new job she is going to be busy) and Maarten is away on a skiing holiday - no reply from the others. Update - the CWG Stewardship members are being asked to review the latest transition documents in their entirety to determine if they are happy with the (revised) Accountability proposals and the updated CWG proposal to ascertain if it meets their needs in advance of our next call. For the record, the CWG's proposal has been manipulated (by whom I do not know) and some of the safeguards have been watered down. At our last call (Thursday 21st Jan) I asked that all docs for review be immediately sent to the CWG Stewardship mailing list so _all_ members (not a small subset) had the opportunity to review and make a determination if the ICANN and the PTI's obligations had been reinstated. I advised that I was willing to review the docs last weekend but the docs have NOT been published on the CWG Stewardship mailing list... so I have NOT seen the latest docs. The current strategy seems to be to work with a small subset and obscure the details (and infer acquiescence), so the transition can stay on course. For the record I am NOT in a position to lend my support to the current proposal as I do not know the details of the (current) revised proposal. Our ccTLD coordination call has been postponed and our mailing list is silent ..... :-( Best Paul
Hi Lise, As CWG Co-Chair, could you please provide an update on the concerns that Paul has raised? Thank you, Byron -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: January-26-16 1:44 PM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Cc: paul.kane@icb.co.uk Subject: [ccnso-council] Fwd: Work of CWG Paul Kane has asked me to forward this to the ccNSO council. Somewhat concerning . . . What thoughts to Councillors have? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Work of CWG Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:13:19 +0000 From: pkane@cdns.net To: 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org> CC: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Quick update It is good to have our 5th member back - welcome Maarten. There are so many moving parts and the unique ccTLD position is being ignored/weakened. I proposed we had a ccTLD reps coordination call this week but Lise is busy (obviously starting her new job she is going to be busy) and Maarten is away on a skiing holiday - no reply from the others. Update - the CWG Stewardship members are being asked to review the latest transition documents in their entirety to determine if they are happy with the (revised) Accountability proposals and the updated CWG proposal to ascertain if it meets their needs in advance of our next call. For the record, the CWG's proposal has been manipulated (by whom I do not know) and some of the safeguards have been watered down. At our last call (Thursday 21st Jan) I asked that all docs for review be immediately sent to the CWG Stewardship mailing list so _all_ members (not a small subset) had the opportunity to review and make a determination if the ICANN and the PTI's obligations had been reinstated. I advised that I was willing to review the docs last weekend but the docs have NOT been published on the CWG Stewardship mailing list... so I have NOT seen the latest docs. The current strategy seems to be to work with a small subset and obscure the details (and infer acquiescence), so the transition can stay on course. For the record I am NOT in a position to lend my support to the current proposal as I do not know the details of the (current) revised proposal. Our ccTLD coordination call has been postponed and our mailing list is silent ..... :-( Best Paul
participants (5)
-
Burr, Becky -
Byron Holland -
Nigel Roberts -
Peter Vergote -
Stephen Deerhake