Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
Colleagues - Please see below. The CCWG will not publish today, which is the document cut-off for our Special Session on 29 FEB. I'm open to proposals that we either (a) waive the document cut off for this document, and proceed with the Special Session, or (b) cancel the Special Session. I tend to favor the first approach, but will defer to the sentiment of the group on this. Any thoughts from the Council on this? On our call Thursday we noted that we would not want our first exposure to the CCWG Report was in Marrakesh. Today's development makes this scenario more likely. In response, I think we should prepare to repurpose additional sessions (potentially Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday) in Morocco for this work. But we will have a clearer picture next week. Stay tuned. Thanks- J. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 18:19 To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>)" <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear all, As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group. There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0.... While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process. It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process. We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday's CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group. Until the Tuesday call, let's keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule. As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other's value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly. Thank you, Thomas, León, Mathieu CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
James: As stated in my own email to the Council list, this delays release of the Final Report until at least next Wednesday at the earliest. If it is delivered sometime next week I think that argues even more strongly for a February 29th call, to initiate our review as well as discuss the feasibility of the timeline for final GNSO action by March 9th. If it is not released until after 2/26 I think we will need to seriously discuss the timeline. These are my personal views as I have not yet consulted with the BC on this unexpected development. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 9:23 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Colleagues - Please see below. The CCWG will not publish today, which is the document cut-off for our Special Session on 29 FEB. I'm open to proposals that we either (a) waive the document cut off for this document, and proceed with the Special Session, or (b) cancel the Special Session. I tend to favor the first approach, but will defer to the sentiment of the group on this. Any thoughts from the Council on this? On our call Thursday we noted that we would not want our first exposure to the CCWG Report was in Marrakesh. Today's development makes this scenario more likely. In response, I think we should prepare to repurpose additional sessions (potentially Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday) in Morocco for this work. But we will have a clearer picture next week. Stay tuned. Thanks- J. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 18:19 To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>)" <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear all, As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group. There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0.... While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process. It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process. We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday's CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group. Until the Tuesday call, let's keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule. As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other's value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly. Thank you, Thomas, León, Mathieu CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
Thanks, Phil. I’ll put that down as support for option (a) Proceed with the meeting, and waive the document deadline for the CCWG. Basically, we will consider the report whenever it arrives, so long as it’s before the call. Thanks— J. From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 21:08 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs James: As stated in my own email to the Council list, this delays release of the Final Report until at least next Wednesday at the earliest. If it is delivered sometime next week I think that argues even more strongly for a February 29th call, to initiate our review as well as discuss the feasibility of the timeline for final GNSO action by March 9th. If it is not released until after 2/26 I think we will need to seriously discuss the timeline. These are my personal views as I have not yet consulted with the BC on this unexpected development. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 9:23 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Colleagues - Please see below. The CCWG will not publish today, which is the document cut-off for our Special Session on 29 FEB. I’m open to proposals that we either (a) waive the document cut off for this document, and proceed with the Special Session, or (b) cancel the Special Session. I tend to favor the first approach, but will defer to the sentiment of the group on this. Any thoughts from the Council on this? On our call Thursday we noted that we would not want our first exposure to the CCWG Report was in Marrakesh. Today’s development makes this scenario more likely. In response, I think we should prepare to repurpose additional sessions (potentially Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday) in Morocco for this work. But we will have a clearer picture next week. Stay tuned. Thanks— J. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 18:19 To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>)" <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear all, As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group. There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0.... While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process. It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process. We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group. Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule. As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly. Thank you, Thomas, León, Mathieu CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
Correct, James. I support waiver, and of proceeding with 2/29 the call to maximize odds of reaching reasoned decisions in Marrakech. My only caveat would be that I believe we should have at least 48 hours between receipt of the Report and start of the 2/29 call. We need some reasonable amount of review time to have a productive discussion. Again, these views are personal as I have shared the development with the BC but have yet to receive feedback. Enjoy the weekend. (Indeed, put all this out of your mind, and start fresh on Monday ;-) Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 10:55 PM To: Phil Corwin; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Thanks, Phil. I'll put that down as support for option (a) Proceed with the meeting, and waive the document deadline for the CCWG. Basically, we will consider the report whenever it arrives, so long as it's before the call. Thanks- J. From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 21:08 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs James: As stated in my own email to the Council list, this delays release of the Final Report until at least next Wednesday at the earliest. If it is delivered sometime next week I think that argues even more strongly for a February 29th call, to initiate our review as well as discuss the feasibility of the timeline for final GNSO action by March 9th. If it is not released until after 2/26 I think we will need to seriously discuss the timeline. These are my personal views as I have not yet consulted with the BC on this unexpected development. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 9:23 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Colleagues - Please see below. The CCWG will not publish today, which is the document cut-off for our Special Session on 29 FEB. I'm open to proposals that we either (a) waive the document cut off for this document, and proceed with the Special Session, or (b) cancel the Special Session. I tend to favor the first approach, but will defer to the sentiment of the group on this. Any thoughts from the Council on this? On our call Thursday we noted that we would not want our first exposure to the CCWG Report was in Marrakesh. Today's development makes this scenario more likely. In response, I think we should prepare to repurpose additional sessions (potentially Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday) in Morocco for this work. But we will have a clearer picture next week. Stay tuned. Thanks- J. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 18:19 To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>)" <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear all, As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group. There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0.... While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process. It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process. We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday's CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group. Until the Tuesday call, let's keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule. As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other's value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly. Thank you, Thomas, León, Mathieu CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
Hi James, I'm happy to defer to your judgement as to how to handle this. A or B: your call. ?I do think it may be appropriate to let the CCWG know that their continued delay may make it impossible for us to give them a response by their deadline. Although I hope that repurposing some of our sessions, or even adding some, will allow us to satisfy the working group, a soft reminder that we charter them and not the other way around might help prevent further delay. For those who haven't been following the CCWG closely: welcome. I did receive a few private messages telling me that my concern over voting on a moving target was unwarranted as the report would soon be final. I wish events had proven me wrong. Nothing ever seems to be final in the CCWG. Once things seem to be agreed you just sit and wait for the next disruptive bomb to go off. Sad. Thanks James. Best, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 4:00 AM To: "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Thanks, Phil. I'll put that down as support for option (a) Proceed with the meeting, and waive the document deadline for the CCWG. Basically, we will consider the report whenever it arrives, so long as it's before the call. Thanks- J. From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 21:08 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs James: As stated in my own email to the Council list, this delays release of the Final Report until at least next Wednesday at the earliest. If it is delivered sometime next week I think that argues even more strongly for a February 29th call, to initiate our review as well as discuss the feasibility of the timeline for final GNSO action by March 9th. If it is not released until after 2/26 I think we will need to seriously discuss the timeline. These are my personal views as I have not yet consulted with the BC on this unexpected development. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 9:23 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Colleagues - Please see below. The CCWG will not publish today, which is the document cut-off for our Special Session on 29 FEB. I'm open to proposals that we either (a) waive the document cut off for this document, and proceed with the Special Session, or (b) cancel the Special Session. I tend to favor the first approach, but will defer to the sentiment of the group on this. Any thoughts from the Council on this? On our call Thursday we noted that we would not want our first exposure to the CCWG Report was in Marrakesh. Today's development makes this scenario more likely. In response, I think we should prepare to repurpose additional sessions (potentially Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday) in Morocco for this work. But we will have a clearer picture next week. Stay tuned. Thanks- J. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 18:19 To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@icann.org)" <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear all, As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group. There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0.... While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process. It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process. We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday's CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group. Until the Tuesday call, let's keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule. As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other's value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly. Thank you, Thomas, León, Mathieu CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs ---------------------------------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process.
Isn't the board opinion simply just that - an opinion (maybe belonging in with the minority statements)? There is of course the possibility that they invoke the magic phrase "global public interest", but that requires 2/3 majority of the board, and leads to a formal dialogue with the CCWG. Am I correct in assuming any amendments would then go back to the chartering organisations for approval one more time? Julf
Hi Julf, It warms my heart to see another GNSO Councillor attentive to our Charter and intent on using its provisions to tackle problems like this one. Sent from my iPhone
On 21 Feb 2016, at 10:15, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process.
Isn't the board opinion simply just that - an opinion (maybe belonging in with the minority statements)
Well, the Board submitted its statement past the deadline for the submission of Minority Statements. I'd be in favour of waiving the deadline so their statement could be included. Reasonable, considering the circumstances. I'm not sure how others feel.
There is of course the possibility that they invoke the magic phrase "global public interest", but that requires 2/3 majority of the board, and leads to a formal dialogue with the CCWG. Am I correct in assuming any amendments would then go back to the chartering organisations for approval one more time? Julf
Yes, sir, you are 100 per cent correct! After the dialogue, a dialogue that only ensues if 2/3 of the board concludes the proposal is against the global public interest, but prior to submitting a modified recommendation to the Board, the CCWG is required to go back to the chartering organisations for approval. This is what should be happening. The Supplemental Report should already have been issued under the timetable that was announced. We in the chartering organizations should be considering the proposal this weekend. Instead our own schedules have been severely disrupted. A rule based organization or an organization ruled by personality, with strict adherence to rules only for some but not for others. That really is what is at question here. What are we and, if the later, is ICANN really ready for independence? Recent behaviour of this group suggests it is not. Thanks, Julf, for looking at the Charter and asking questions that suggest that you, like I, see it as a document whose provisions should be followed and would lead to a final solution on this matter. Best, Ed Morris
It warms my heart to see another GNSO Councillor attentive to our Charter and intent on using its provisions to tackle problems like this one.
Thanks, Ed - it is one of the advantages / disadvantages of being a newcomer that has to keep checking "now where does this come from?" and "what is this based on?" all the time. Would it perhaps be an idea for us to ask formally (as a chartering organisation) the chairs of the CCWG why they are delaying the process (after putting us all under pretty stiff time pressure) merely because the board has expressed "concern" - something not covered by the charter? Julf
Im concerned about waiving the document cut off if the last chance to waive red flags ethos remains. I thought that would be a difficult ethos to connect with in the first place, but as this drags out, it seems even more arbitrary. In other words, Im for keeping the Feb 29th session, so long as I am not told later that my stakeholders missed their window to raise issues because they werent raised on the 29th. Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:23 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Colleagues - Please see below. The CCWG will not publish today, which is the document cut-off for our Special Session on 29 FEB. Im open to proposals that we either (a) waive the document cut off for this document, and proceed with the Special Session, or (b) cancel the Special Session. I tend to favor the first approach, but will defer to the sentiment of the group on this. Any thoughts from the Council on this? On our call Thursday we noted that we would not want our first exposure to the CCWG Report was in Marrakesh. Todays development makes this scenario more likely. In response, I think we should prepare to repurpose additional sessions (potentially Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday) in Morocco for this work. But we will have a clearer picture next week. Stay tuned. Thanks J. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 18:19 To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@icann.org)" <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear all, As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group. There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0 11056.html. While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process. It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process. We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesdays CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group. Until the Tuesday call, lets keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule. As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each others value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly. Thank you, Thomas, León, Mathieu CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
James, Has there been any further word from CCWG-ACCT? Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady, Jr. policy@paulmcgrady.com +1-312-558-5963 From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady (Policy) Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 08:32 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Im concerned about waiving the document cut off if the last chance to waive red flags ethos remains. I thought that would be a difficult ethos to connect with in the first place, but as this drags out, it seems even more arbitrary. In other words, Im for keeping the Feb 29th session, so long as I am not told later that my stakeholders missed their window to raise issues because they werent raised on the 29th. Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:23 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Colleagues - Please see below. The CCWG will not publish today, which is the document cut-off for our Special Session on 29 FEB. Im open to proposals that we either (a) waive the document cut off for this document, and proceed with the Special Session, or (b) cancel the Special Session. I tend to favor the first approach, but will defer to the sentiment of the group on this. Any thoughts from the Council on this? On our call Thursday we noted that we would not want our first exposure to the CCWG Report was in Marrakesh. Todays development makes this scenario more likely. In response, I think we should prepare to repurpose additional sessions (potentially Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday) in Morocco for this work. But we will have a clearer picture next week. Stay tuned. Thanks J. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 18:19 To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@icann.org)" <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear all, As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group. There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0 11056.html. While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process. It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process. We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesdays CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group. Until the Tuesday call, lets keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule. As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each others value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly. Thank you, Thomas, León, Mathieu CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
The CCWG Co-Chairs have decided that polling on last night's call justified the removal of the controversial clause 2 in section 72 of Annex 2. Final report is to be distributed today, and revised Appendix A in 48 hours. So we will have everything well in advance of the 2/29 Council call. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady (Policy) Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 4:59 PM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs James, Has there been any further word from CCWG-ACCT? Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady, Jr. policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> +1-312-558-5963 From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady (Policy) Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 08:32 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs I'm concerned about waiving the document cut off if the "last chance to waive red flags" ethos remains. I thought that would be a difficult ethos to connect with in the first place, but as this drags out, it seems even more arbitrary. In other words, I'm for keeping the Feb 29th session, so long as I am not told later that my stakeholders missed their window to raise issues because they weren't raised on the 29th. Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:23 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Colleagues - Please see below. The CCWG will not publish today, which is the document cut-off for our Special Session on 29 FEB. I'm open to proposals that we either (a) waive the document cut off for this document, and proceed with the Special Session, or (b) cancel the Special Session. I tend to favor the first approach, but will defer to the sentiment of the group on this. Any thoughts from the Council on this? On our call Thursday we noted that we would not want our first exposure to the CCWG Report was in Marrakesh. Today's development makes this scenario more likely. In response, I think we should prepare to repurpose additional sessions (potentially Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday) in Morocco for this work. But we will have a clearer picture next week. Stay tuned. Thanks- J. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 18:19 To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>)" <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear all, As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group. There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0.... While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process. It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process. We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday's CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group. Until the Tuesday call, let's keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule. As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other's value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly. Thank you, Thomas, León, Mathieu CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4533/11679 - Release Date: 02/22/16
Thanks, Phil. I expect the same, full publication within the next 48 hours. J. From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 17:18 To: "Paul McGrady (Policy)" <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs The CCWG Co-Chairs have decided that polling on last night’s call justified the removal of the controversial clause 2 in section 72 of Annex 2. Final report is to be distributed today, and revised Appendix A in 48 hours. So we will have everything well in advance of the 2/29 Council call. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady (Policy) Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 4:59 PM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs James, Has there been any further word from CCWG-ACCT? Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady, Jr. policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> +1-312-558-5963 From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady (Policy) Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 08:32 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs I’m concerned about waiving the document cut off if the “last chance to waive red flags” ethos remains. I thought that would be a difficult ethos to connect with in the first place, but as this drags out, it seems even more arbitrary. In other words, I’m for keeping the Feb 29th session, so long as I am not told later that my stakeholders missed their window to raise issues because they weren’t raised on the 29th. Best, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:23 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Colleagues - Please see below. The CCWG will not publish today, which is the document cut-off for our Special Session on 29 FEB. I’m open to proposals that we either (a) waive the document cut off for this document, and proceed with the Special Session, or (b) cancel the Special Session. I tend to favor the first approach, but will defer to the sentiment of the group on this. Any thoughts from the Council on this? On our call Thursday we noted that we would not want our first exposure to the CCWG Report was in Marrakesh. Today’s development makes this scenario more likely. In response, I think we should prepare to repurpose additional sessions (potentially Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday) in Morocco for this work. But we will have a clearer picture next week. Stay tuned. Thanks— J. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 18:19 To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>)" <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear all, As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group. There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/0.... While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process. It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process. We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group. Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule. As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly. Thank you, Thomas, León, Mathieu CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4533/11679 - Release Date: 02/22/16
participants (5)
-
Edward Morris -
James M. Bladel -
Johan Helsingius -
Paul McGrady (Policy) -
Phil Corwin