Re: [ccnso-council] Fwd: [ccnso-members] Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1)
*VERY* Well put. I just think I have been spoiled by the stellar abilities of Keith (in particular), Becky, Byron, Lesley and others (in DRD, FoI, and now Council) to chair meetings and enable the working-togther of members with disparate approaches and disparate positions towards unanimity, (let alone rough consensus!) I must be naive and unrealistic in my expectationg that WGs that are broader than just within the ccNSO can do the same . . . On 05/07/2015 05:39 AM, Barrack Otieno wrote:
+1 to Lesley, we should strive to accommodate each other , we can look towards achieving some rough consensus.
Regards
On 5/7/15, Keith Davidson <keith@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Agree Lesley, that we should re-evaluate the timeline in light of this. But what has happened cannot be un-happened and I fear there are some irresolvable differences in perspectives that have arisen.
Cheers
Keith
On 7/05/2015 10:15 a.m., Lesley Cowley wrote:
I suggest that the NTIA letter posted just now may be helpful. It states that “We have never viewed the September 30 date as a deadline, but have stated from the start that the transition planning should proceed according to whatever schedule the community sets”
Accordingly, I think we should set a different deadline if it is apparent that the current one is creating all sorts of problems.
Cheers,
Lesley
On 6 May 2015, at 23:07, Keith Davidson <keith@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
On 6/05/2015 9:16 p.m., Nigel Roberts 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.
<snip>
The working groups I chaired were fortunate to not have hard deadlines, and allowed us the luxury of exploring and teasing out issues from all participants and respondents to the consultations.
Sadly, the TLD community has not had this luxury and has been battling a ridiculous timeline on the IANA transition.
Cheers
Keith
Putting aside Eberhard's gentle bedside manner for the moment, it seems to me he highlights an important issue that could be resolved. The Framework of Interpretation is actually highly relevant to the question of what ICANN needs to be accountable to the cc community for. RFC 1591 is the relevant ICANN "policy" in this space. (To be clear, I am willing to accept that GAC 2005 Principles are "advice" to the extent they apply in any given situation, and to acknowledge that where they apply, the Principles enjoy the bylaws protections afforded to such "advice.") Applying RFC 1591 is not straightforward (as I learned at Nigel's expense), and the FoI will make application of 1591 more predictable and uniform going forward. So, from an accountability standpoint, it seems reasonable to ask (as we have) for the Board's formal acknowledgment that the FoI (i) articulates existing policy that governs its performance of the IANA functions, (ii) is a standard against which ICANN's performance can be measured, and (iii) that it can be held accountable for non compliance with this standard. Should we take this opportunity to renew our request to the Board? That would not answer all of Eberhard's questions or address his process objections, but it would resolve his legitimate substantive concerns about the standard to which ICANN can be held accountable. Becky Sent from my iPad
On May 7, 2015, at 4:42 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
*VERY* Well put.
I just think I have been spoiled by the stellar abilities of Keith (in particular), Becky, Byron, Lesley and others (in DRD, FoI, and now Council) to chair meetings and enable the working-togther of members with disparate approaches and disparate positions towards unanimity, (let alone rough consensus!)
I must be naive and unrealistic in my expectationg that WGs that are broader than just within the ccNSO can do the same . . .
On 05/07/2015 05:39 AM, Barrack Otieno wrote: +1 to Lesley, we should strive to accommodate each other , we can look towards achieving some rough consensus.
Regards
On 5/7/15, Keith Davidson <keith@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Agree Lesley, that we should re-evaluate the timeline in light of this. But what has happened cannot be un-happened and I fear there are some irresolvable differences in perspectives that have arisen.
Cheers
Keith
On 7/05/2015 10:15 a.m., Lesley Cowley wrote: I suggest that the NTIA letter posted just now may be helpful. It states that “We have never viewed the September 30 date as a deadline, but have stated from the start that the transition planning should proceed according to whatever schedule the community sets”
Accordingly, I think we should set a different deadline if it is apparent that the current one is creating all sorts of problems.
Cheers,
Lesley
On 6 May 2015, at 23:07, Keith Davidson <keith@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
On 6/05/2015 9:16 p.m., Nigel Roberts 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. <snip>
The working groups I chaired were fortunate to not have hard deadlines, and allowed us the luxury of exploring and teasing out issues from all participants and respondents to the consultations.
Sadly, the TLD community has not had this luxury and has been battling a ridiculous timeline on the IANA transition.
Cheers
Keith
Hi Becky, The FoI Board briefing prep work is going on at the moment. Our goal is to have the matter formally before the Board in BA (or very soon thereafter). So the Board can sign off on moving forward a paper is being prepared confirming the clarity and feasibility of the recommendations and outlining implementation resource requirements etc. Mike and I are acting as Board shepherds for this process. Bart, Kim and Elise have been involved on the staff side. We may need input from you and Keith and will keep you posted. Cheers, Chris
On 7 May 2015, at 21:36 , Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
Putting aside Eberhard's gentle bedside manner for the moment, it seems to me he highlights an important issue that could be resolved. The Framework of Interpretation is actually highly relevant to the question of what ICANN needs to be accountable to the cc community for. RFC 1591 is the relevant ICANN "policy" in this space. (To be clear, I am willing to accept that GAC 2005 Principles are "advice" to the extent they apply in any given situation, and to acknowledge that where they apply, the Principles enjoy the bylaws protections afforded to such "advice.")
Applying RFC 1591 is not straightforward (as I learned at Nigel's expense), and the FoI will make application of 1591 more predictable and uniform going forward. So, from an accountability standpoint, it seems reasonable to ask (as we have) for the Board's formal acknowledgment that the FoI (i) articulates existing policy that governs its performance of the IANA functions, (ii) is a standard against which ICANN's performance can be measured, and (iii) that it can be held accountable for non compliance with this standard.
Should we take this opportunity to renew our request to the Board? That would not answer all of Eberhard's questions or address his process objections, but it would resolve his legitimate substantive concerns about the standard to which ICANN can be held accountable.
Becky
Sent from my iPad
On May 7, 2015, at 4:42 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
*VERY* Well put.
I just think I have been spoiled by the stellar abilities of Keith (in particular), Becky, Byron, Lesley and others (in DRD, FoI, and now Council) to chair meetings and enable the working-togther of members with disparate approaches and disparate positions towards unanimity, (let alone rough consensus!)
I must be naive and unrealistic in my expectationg that WGs that are broader than just within the ccNSO can do the same . . .
On 05/07/2015 05:39 AM, Barrack Otieno wrote: +1 to Lesley, we should strive to accommodate each other , we can look towards achieving some rough consensus.
Regards
On 5/7/15, Keith Davidson <keith@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Agree Lesley, that we should re-evaluate the timeline in light of this. But what has happened cannot be un-happened and I fear there are some irresolvable differences in perspectives that have arisen.
Cheers
Keith
On 7/05/2015 10:15 a.m., Lesley Cowley wrote: I suggest that the NTIA letter posted just now may be helpful. It states that “We have never viewed the September 30 date as a deadline, but have stated from the start that the transition planning should proceed according to whatever schedule the community sets”
Accordingly, I think we should set a different deadline if it is apparent that the current one is creating all sorts of problems.
Cheers,
Lesley
On 6 May 2015, at 23:07, Keith Davidson <keith@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
> On 6/05/2015 9:16 p.m., Nigel Roberts 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. <snip>
The working groups I chaired were fortunate to not have hard deadlines, and allowed us the luxury of exploring and teasing out issues from all participants and respondents to the consultations.
Sadly, the TLD community has not had this luxury and has been battling a ridiculous timeline on the IANA transition.
Cheers
Keith
Great news, thanks! Sent from my iPad On May 7, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote: Hi Becky, The FoI Board briefing prep work is going on at the moment. Our goal is to have the matter formally before the Board in BA (or very soon thereafter). So the Board can sign off on moving forward a paper is being prepared confirming the clarity and feasibility of the recommendations and outlining implementation resource requirements etc. Mike and I are acting as Board shepherds for this process. Bart, Kim and Elise have been involved on the staff side. We may need input from you and Keith and will keep you posted. Cheers, Chris On 7 May 2015, at 21:36 , Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> wrote: Putting aside Eberhard's gentle bedside manner for the moment, it seems to me he highlights an important issue that could be resolved. The Framework of Interpretation is actually highly relevant to the question of what ICANN needs to be accountable to the cc community for. RFC 1591 is the relevant ICANN "policy" in this space. (To be clear, I am willing to accept that GAC 2005 Principles are "advice" to the extent they apply in any given situation, and to acknowledge that where they apply, the Principles enjoy the bylaws protections afforded to such "advice.") Applying RFC 1591 is not straightforward (as I learned at Nigel's expense), and the FoI will make application of 1591 more predictable and uniform going forward. So, from an accountability standpoint, it seems reasonable to ask (as we have) for the Board's formal acknowledgment that the FoI (i) articulates existing policy that governs its performance of the IANA functions, (ii) is a standard against which ICANN's performance can be measured, and (iii) that it can be held accountable for non compliance with this standard. Should we take this opportunity to renew our request to the Board? That would not answer all of Eberhard's questions or address his process objections, but it would resolve his legitimate substantive concerns about the standard to which ICANN can be held accountable. Becky Sent from my iPad On May 7, 2015, at 4:42 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote: *VERY* Well put. I just think I have been spoiled by the stellar abilities of Keith (in particular), Becky, Byron, Lesley and others (in DRD, FoI, and now Council) to chair meetings and enable the working-togther of members with disparate approaches and disparate positions towards unanimity, (let alone rough consensus!) I must be naive and unrealistic in my expectationg that WGs that are broader than just within the ccNSO can do the same . . . On 05/07/2015 05:39 AM, Barrack Otieno wrote: +1 to Lesley, we should strive to accommodate each other , we can look towards achieving some rough consensus. Regards On 5/7/15, Keith Davidson <keith@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:keith@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: Agree Lesley, that we should re-evaluate the timeline in light of this. But what has happened cannot be un-happened and I fear there are some irresolvable differences in perspectives that have arisen. Cheers Keith On 7/05/2015 10:15 a.m., Lesley Cowley wrote: I suggest that the NTIA letter posted just now may be helpful. It states that “We have never viewed the September 30 date as a deadline, but have stated from the start that the transition planning should proceed according to whatever schedule the community sets” Accordingly, I think we should set a different deadline if it is apparent that the current one is creating all sorts of problems. Cheers, Lesley On 6 May 2015, at 23:07, Keith Davidson <keith@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:keith@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: On 6/05/2015 9:16 p.m., Nigel Roberts 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. <snip> The working groups I chaired were fortunate to not have hard deadlines, and allowed us the luxury of exploring and teasing out issues from all participants and respondents to the consultations. Sadly, the TLD community has not had this luxury and has been battling a ridiculous timeline on the IANA transition. Cheers Keith
This will have a very positive effect Sent from my iPad On May 7, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote: Hi Becky, The FoI Board briefing prep work is going on at the moment. Our goal is to have the matter formally before the Board in BA (or very soon thereafter). So the Board can sign off on moving forward a paper is being prepared confirming the clarity and feasibility of the recommendations and outlining implementation resource requirements etc. Mike and I are acting as Board shepherds for this process. Bart, Kim and Elise have been involved on the staff side. We may need input from you and Keith and will keep you posted. Cheers, Chris On 7 May 2015, at 21:36 , Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> wrote: Putting aside Eberhard's gentle bedside manner for the moment, it seems to me he highlights an important issue that could be resolved. The Framework of Interpretation is actually highly relevant to the question of what ICANN needs to be accountable to the cc community for. RFC 1591 is the relevant ICANN "policy" in this space. (To be clear, I am willing to accept that GAC 2005 Principles are "advice" to the extent they apply in any given situation, and to acknowledge that where they apply, the Principles enjoy the bylaws protections afforded to such "advice.") Applying RFC 1591 is not straightforward (as I learned at Nigel's expense), and the FoI will make application of 1591 more predictable and uniform going forward. So, from an accountability standpoint, it seems reasonable to ask (as we have) for the Board's formal acknowledgment that the FoI (i) articulates existing policy that governs its performance of the IANA functions, (ii) is a standard against which ICANN's performance can be measured, and (iii) that it can be held accountable for non compliance with this standard. Should we take this opportunity to renew our request to the Board? That would not answer all of Eberhard's questions or address his process objections, but it would resolve his legitimate substantive concerns about the standard to which ICANN can be held accountable. Becky Sent from my iPad On May 7, 2015, at 4:42 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote: *VERY* Well put. I just think I have been spoiled by the stellar abilities of Keith (in particular), Becky, Byron, Lesley and others (in DRD, FoI, and now Council) to chair meetings and enable the working-togther of members with disparate approaches and disparate positions towards unanimity, (let alone rough consensus!) I must be naive and unrealistic in my expectationg that WGs that are broader than just within the ccNSO can do the same . . . On 05/07/2015 05:39 AM, Barrack Otieno wrote: +1 to Lesley, we should strive to accommodate each other , we can look towards achieving some rough consensus. Regards On 5/7/15, Keith Davidson <keith@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:keith@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: Agree Lesley, that we should re-evaluate the timeline in light of this. But what has happened cannot be un-happened and I fear there are some irresolvable differences in perspectives that have arisen. Cheers Keith On 7/05/2015 10:15 a.m., Lesley Cowley wrote: I suggest that the NTIA letter posted just now may be helpful. It states that “We have never viewed the September 30 date as a deadline, but have stated from the start that the transition planning should proceed according to whatever schedule the community sets” Accordingly, I think we should set a different deadline if it is apparent that the current one is creating all sorts of problems. Cheers, Lesley On 6 May 2015, at 23:07, Keith Davidson <keith@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:keith@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: On 6/05/2015 9:16 p.m., Nigel Roberts 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. <snip> The working groups I chaired were fortunate to not have hard deadlines, and allowed us the luxury of exploring and teasing out issues from all participants and respondents to the consultations. Sadly, the TLD community has not had this luxury and has been battling a ridiculous timeline on the IANA transition. Cheers Keith
participants (3)
-
Burr, Becky -
Chris Disspain -
Nigel Roberts