- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Task Force Suggestions
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 12, 2015

Feb. 12, 2015

Hi all, Based on our meeting today, I'm starting the thread for task force suggestions. As mentioned during the session, there will likely be a task force needed to address SLAs. Task Force Suggestions: 1. SLAs 2. Next?

3 2

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #21 11 FEB
by Brenda Brewer Feb. 11, 2015

Feb. 11, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Call #21 on 11 February are available here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/IANA+CWG+Meeting+%232… ebruary Action Items * Smaller group to review documents in detail and pull out key actions for the CWG, including SAC 67, 68, 69; existing proposals submitted to ICG, * NTIA slides on root zone management * Reach out to other communities (protocol parameters and numbers) to see if they can add to gap analysis * Develop and maintain a required reading list for the CWG * Use mailing list to develop list of task forces categories (requirements, then solutions): SLAs is one * More transparency for Client Committee Agenda: 1. Opening Remarks 2. Briefing on SAC 69 Document 3. Client Committee on Legal Advice 4. CCWG-Accountability a. Coordination b. Response to 30 January Letter 5. Way Forward a. Work Methods b. Work Plan 6. Gap Analysis 7. Open Microphone Opportunity for Observers to Engage in Working Meeting 8. Review of Action Items 9. AOB Notes 11/2: 1. Opening Remarks * This group has taken its work seriously and worked very hard (including holidays) * Work to date: Draft Proposal; Public Comment; Discussion Document * Discussed feedback to date, especially from ICANN52, and suggest key points for moving ahead: * Continue to move ahead and to make good progress, and to be seen to make good progress * A functional, implementable, and complete plan is needed 2. Briefing on SAC 69 Document Presentation by Patrik Fältström & Russ Mundy (Slides will be uploaded to meeting page on Wiki) * In addition to SAC 69, please study SAC 67 and SAC 68 * If the CWG proposal does not match the SSAC recommendations, that does not mean that the SSAC would object to the proposal. The SAC documents are guides available to the CWG * Fältström: Reading the document will make the CWG work easier ACTION: All to review SAC 67, 68, 69 ACTION: Smaller group to review documents in detail and pull out key actions for the CWG 3. Client Committee on Legal Advice Update by Greg Shatan * Looking for core competency in the corporate governance area * It's premature at the moment to discuss and particular law firm, but the list is being worked through * Working with ICANN, but also independent of ICANN * Coordinating closely with the CCWG-Accountability Questions * Sridhar: How has "the client" been defined? * Ojedeji: Is there a list? Where to follow discussion? What is the timeline for the advice? 4. CCWG-Accountability Presentation by Mathieu Weill & Thomas Rickert (Slides will be uploaded to meeting page on Wiki) * Call for more "working together" on behalf of the chairs as well as the full group (lots of overlap on participants of groups) * The CCWG-A will address the requests in the letter exchange, including budget transparency * The CCWG-A will also address delegation and redelegations except for where countries need to deal with them * Independent Review of Board Actions: there will be a mechanism that we can rely on (both empowered community and independent review). Substantive decisions on the ccTLDs will not be addressed by the Board. * No reply to letter needed by mail since this has been addressed in session 5. Way Forward * Chairs suggest focusing on building the document, to envision what a finished product would look like * Our group had divided its work into subgroups related to the ICG RFP, but it may be more efficient to work as whole group. Create task forces as needed (for example on SLAs, detail of CSC, possibly the IAP) * Integrating the group and working as a committee of the whole may be more effective * Cross referencing the IANAPLAN-WG and CRISP proposals * This will serve purpose of developing incremental progress * Legal advice is part of convergence on models * All of the CWG's energy has been focused on too large a chunk of work, the idea of task forces is to tackle the work in smaller chunks 6. Gap Analysis (Introduced under item 5 "Way Forward") * Existing proposals, SAC 69, etc, will help determine the gaps * We also did our own analysis of the IANA functions contract, so we can refer back to that as well ACTION: All to review NTIA slides 7. Open Microphone * Suggest to reach out to other communities (protocol parameters and numbers) to see if they can add to gap analysis * Suggest that the group review the IANA department ACTION: Develop and maintain a required reading list for the CWG 8. Review of Action Items * Smaller group to review documents in detail and pull out key actions for the CWG, including SAC 67, 68, 69; existing proposals submitted to ICG, NTIA slides on root zone management * Reach out to other communities (protocol parameters and numbers) to see if they can add to gap analysis * Develop and maintain a required reading list for the CWG * Use mailing list to develop list of task forces categories (requirements, then solutions): SLAs is one * More transparency for Client Committee 9. AOB

1 0

verification function
by Avri Doria Feb. 11, 2015

Feb. 11, 2015

Hi, Sitting in the/IANA Department - Who, What, Why?/session. The question of who would perform the verification after NTIA no longer does it. Unless we assume that the function is not required, is this something that could just be farmed out to a professional audit company? avri

9 12

IANA Intro session @ ICANN 52
by Robert Guerra Feb. 11, 2015

Feb. 11, 2015

I attended the IANA intro session this morning . IANA staff presented the work they do, the reporting metrics they use and interaction with NTIA in a concise and well defined fashion. As very few CWG members were there (4-5), I highly recommend the session and accompanying presentation be viewed by those on the list. The URL to the session, including the slides that were presented are available here - http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-iana A take home message is that the existing NTIA authorization step is very efficient (done in mins or hours) I thanked the iana staff for their great presentation and asked if they would be attending our working meeting this afternoon. It seems they will attend, though just to observe. Regards Robert -- Robert Guerra Phone: +1 416-893-0377 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra(a)privaterra.org PGP Keys : https://keybase.io/rguerra

1 0

Proposed Agenda for Meeting #21 (Wednesday 11 February at 17:15 SGT // 09:15 UTC)
by Grace Abuhamad Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

Dear all, Here is the proposed agenda for the session tomorrow (Meeting #21): http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-cwg-stewardship 1. Opening Remarks 2. Briefing on SAC 69 Document <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-069-en.pdf> 3. Client Committee on Legal Advice 4. CCWG-Accountability a. Coordination b. Response to 30 January Letter <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Response+from+ICG+--+ 30+January> 5. Way Forward a. Work Methods b. Work Plan 6. Gap Analysis 7. Open Microphone Opportunity for Observers to Engage in Working Meeting 8. Review of Action Items 9. AOB For those present in Singapore, we are meeting in the Padang room. For all, including our remote participants, the Adobe Connect room for the session is: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/sin52-padang. There are also call details for our remote participants as usual that Brenda has circulated to the group on the Notify list. If you have any questions, please contact me. Best, Grace

1 1

checking on rumors of big changes in the way we work
by Avri Doria Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

Hi, Sitting in an ALAC New GTLD WG meeting and just heard about big changes coming in the way the CWG was going to work. My curiosity is piqued. Any updates for the CWG itself? Or did I misunderstand what I was hearing. avri

3 3

Some thoughts on a way out the internal/external deadlock
by Brenden Kuerbis Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/02/10/the-last-third-why-the-iana-tr… --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis iSchool, Syracuse University || http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org>

1 0

CCWG California Law Response
by James Gannon Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

I believe that the CWG should be aware of the response from Jones Day to the CCWG's questions of California law noted below while we are considering options and they will feed into the acceptability of both models under discussion: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/2… I have copied an excerpt extracted and notes on the domainmondo article below: http://www.domainmondo.com/2015/02/icann-lawyers-nix-icann-accountability.h… >>Initial Responses to the Community Working Group's California Law Questions, 7 February 2015,from Jones Day (ICANN's lawyers) to questions submitted by the Cross Community Working Group (CCWG).... (excerpts below, full responses here<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20…>)-- Jones Day: ".... It is important to note that, even in the context of members and delegates, California law provides that the activities and affairs of ICANN still must be conducted and all corporate powers must be exercised by or under the direction of the Board. Accordingly, members and delegates cannot force the Board to take a certain action or overturn a Board decision. The rights of members and delegates under California law are limited and are more closely associated with approval rights over specified actions, rather than the right to second guess or supersede Board action or inaction. For example, members would only be entitled to approve the Board's budget and would not be able to propose or approve a separate budget. As with any new structure, adding "members" or "delegates" raises a considerable number of governance issues, including the mechanisms to hold these new members or delegates accountable, how these members/delegates would be selected (and how could they be changed), what specified matters would the members/delegates be entitled to approve, what would be the applicable voting threshold for each specified matter, how often would member/delegate meetings be held and how much notice would be required for those meetings, and how would the creation of members/delegates affect the existing Board selection structure. Further, any new structure must be evaluated against the question of whether the new structure actually solves the underlying problem or meets the underlying goal. In some respects, the introduction of "members" or "delegates," while initially appealing, may not solve the underlying problems and could simply result in moving the "problems" to another body of individuals where similar accountability concerns would persist (i.e., who watches the watchers) .... "4. In the case of inaction by the Board on an issue developed through community consensus, is it possible to have a mechanism that will empower the community to require the Board to take action? "No. California law does not provide for a mechanism that would empower the community, regardless of whether ICANN has members or not, to force the Board to take action on a community proposal. The activities and affairs of ICANN must be managed and all corporate powers must be exercised under the ultimate direction of the Board...." James Gannon Director Cyber Invasion Ltd Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin, Ireland Office: +353 (1)663-8787 Cell: +353 (86)175-3581 Email:james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net?subject=Via:%20Email%20Signature> GPG: https://keybase.io/jayg

13 28

About the legal team ( Was Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Responses to questions from Jones Day)
by Seun Ojedeji Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

Hello legal team, all I like to forward a section of Kieren's comment to the CCWG which i think should be a fundamental requirement for the legal council that gets finally selected. Also as a follow-up i like to ask about the following: - Where is the legal team discussing the selection process for the legal council - I understand the team alone will be interacting with the legal council which is fine, however its important to limit the medium of interaction and the CWG/community should have access to such interaction in realtime as applicable. Is there plan for that to happen? - Where exactly is the action item(with timeline) of the legal team documented? to help have an idea of what has been achieved so far Regards ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Kieren McCarthy <kieren(a)kierenmccarthy.com> > Date: Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:25 AM > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Responses to questions from Jones Day I also think it would be advisable for whoever is contracted to provide this advice to be obligated to report any and all approaches and conversations with third parties in order to limit the opportunity for behind-the-scenes influencing. On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> wrote: > +1. ICANN has tripled its staff in 2.5 years. Surely it can provide the > resources that this CCWG needs to retain independent legal advice. Until > it does this CCWG should be in a holding pattern and if that delays the > transition so be it. > > 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 > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Feb 8, 2015, at 5:08 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears(a)cdt.org> wrote: > > > > > > Completely agree: > > > > I'd really like to see ICANN demonstrate it is as concerned with helping > the CCWG secure our independent legal resources "in the most efficient and > cost-effective manner" as it was in sharing its own views and positions. > > > > > > Matthew > > > > > >> On 2/8/2015 9:03 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> If everyone recognizes the Jones Day submission as input/advocacy from > an interested party and not legal advice to the CCWG, and that it carries > no greater weight than our yet-to-be-received independent advice, I have no > idea what with ICANN putting its cards on the table. > >> I'm > >> Despite the appearance of an attempt to influence the discussion > through first-mover advantage, this could help us identify early conflicts > of opinion and identify where we need to focus our energies. > >> > >> That said, I'd really like to see ICANN demonstrate it is as concerned > with helping the CCWG secure our independent legal resources "in the most > efficient and cost-effective manner" as it was in sharing its own views and > positions. > >> I'm at a > >> It appears there was more urgency for the latter. > >> I'm > >> Regards, > >> Keith > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >>> On Feb 8, 2015, at 4:25 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1(a)toast.net> wrote: > >>> > >>> One of the reasons many of us opposed inclusion of ICANN staff members > as participants in the accountability and transition working groups, is > that disagreement with staff positions could prove problematic for those > opposing ICANN positions. As a sitting member of the GNSO Council, elected > by my community, I would suggest Samantha that you, as an ICANN staff > member, are not tasked with determining what is and is not an acceptable > opinion or post on this list. > >>> > >>> For the record, despite your assertion, I have not seen anyone declare > the Jones Day opinion "incompetent". I certainly have not. I will, however, > repeat my claim: it is a one sided document that uses legal opinion to > support the known preferences of a interested party (ICANN). It is not a > neutral opinion that we as community members can rely upon in making our > decisions. I look forward to receiving one so I can discharge my > responsibility in helping your employer, Samantha, meet it's obligations to > the both community and to the N.T.I.A. > >>> > >>> Edward Morris > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPad > >>> > >>>> On Feb 8, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Samantha Eisner < > Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Kevin, a skilled attorney in California corporate structures as well > as > >>>> governance issues, provided these responses to the CCWG questions as a > >>>> mode of giving input into the process. Kevin has just arrived here in > >>>> Singapore and will be available to discuss these answers; if > modifications > >>>> or clarifications are needed, they can be provided. These responses, > many > >>>> of which provide a transparent view on advice or positions that ICANN > has > >>>> taken in the past on these issues, are being provided to help narrow > and > >>>> clarify the issues for which external advice may be sought. From the > >>>> ICANN side, we are very interested in making sure that the CCWG gets > the > >>>> input that it needs and in the most efficient and cost-effective > manner; > >>>> ICANN’s transparency on this issue will allow for other counsel to be > able > >>>> to provide advice in a quicker, more timely manner. > >>>> > >>>> As we go down the legal advice path, each of us are likely to see > answers > >>>> that we may not agree with; while we do not have to accept positions > with > >>>> which we take issue, we do need to afford the appropriate respect to > those > >>>> providing responses. Suggestions of “incompetence” are not > acceptable. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On 2/8/15, 2:06 PM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1(a)toast.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I agree Becky. This work product is pure advocacy that ignores > >>>>> substantial portions of the statutes it claims to explain. It's > actually > >>>>> quite remarkable in that way. > >>>>> > >>>>> I only hope we are able to retain competent independent legal > consultant > >>>>> to guide us in this work. I would classify the Jones Day document as > no > >>>>> more than the representation of a policy position of an interested > party > >>>>> drafted by an attorney , not as anything I'd consider valid legal > advice. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent from my iPad > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Feb 8, 2015, at 5:03 AM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The questions and answers are interesting as advocacy but cannot be > >>>>>> considered legal advice for our work > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sent from my iPad > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Feb 8, 2015, at 12:19 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía > >>>>>>> <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Dear all, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Answering your questions: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Keith.- The questions were presented by the Co-Chairs at our > Frankfut > >>>>>>> meeting as a high-level first approach to what we should be > focusing on > >>>>>>> achieving. They were also discussed at the CCWG call of January > 27. We > >>>>>>> then asked Staff to pass the questions through ICANN legal so they > >>>>>>> referred this questions to Jones Day. The document are the > responses > >>>>>>> prepared by Kevin Espinola of Jones Day. The goal was to get a > very > >>>>>>> rapid > >>>>>>> response on some basic questions the group wanted answers on. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Jordan.- I believe Adam has clarified where the questions came > from and > >>>>>>> how they got into Jones Day for response which is in line with > what I > >>>>>>> have > >>>>>>> replied to Keith. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Phil.- Nobody said this was the advice we are taking. Please see > this > >>>>>>> document as one more input document tat will feed our work, just > as the > >>>>>>> CWG legal document has fed it. This is NOT intended to be taken as > the > >>>>>>> legal advice we¹re looking for although in the end it might (or > might > >>>>>>> not) > >>>>>>> be compatible with what we need. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I hope this clarifies the doubts and concerns raised so far. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> León > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> El 08/02/2015, a las 12:05, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.NA> > >>>>>>>> escribió: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Phil, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> opinions of dependent lawyers are as interesting as the ones of > >>>>>>>> independent ones :-)-O > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> el > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 2015-02-08 11:48 , Jordan Carter wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Phil, yes - the CCWG agreed with that in Frankfurt. It was felt > it > >>>>>>>>> might > >>>>>>>>> be helpful to understand the view of the company and its > >>>>>>>>> representatives > >>>>>>>>> as well as an independent view, if I recall correctly. > >>>>>>>>> Jordan > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 8 February 2015 at 11:36, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com > >>>>>>>>> <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Jones Day cannot be regarded as an objective and neutral source > of > >>>>>>>>> legal advice or opinions on anything related to ICANN. Indeed, > any > >>>>>>>>> statement made by Jones Day must be regarded as the views of > ICANN, > >>>>>>>>> its long-standing client. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 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: *Drazek, Keith > >>>>>>>>> *Sent: *Sunday, February 8, 2015 11:14 AM > >>>>>>>>> *To: *León Felipe Sánchez Ambía > >>>>>>>>> *Cc: *CCWG Accountability > >>>>>>>>> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Responses to questions from Jones Day > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Leon, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Do I understand you correctly that Jones Day developed both the > >>>>>>>>> questions and the answers? Did the CCWG request this? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>> Keith > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Feb 8, 2015, at 10:18 AM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía > >>>>>>>>> <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Please find attached the responses from Jones Day for questions > >>>>>>>>>> prepared by Kevin Espinola. I would like to ask you to please > >>>>>>>>>> review the document so we can further discuss it in our session > >>>>>>>>>> tomorrow. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I would also like to remind the group that this is a first step > >>>>>>>>>> which runs parallel to what the legal sub-team is doing in > >>>>>>>>>> coordination with the CWG “legal client”. The aim is to have > this > >>>>>>>>>> responses reviewed by the legal sub-team as well as by the > larger > >>>>>>>>>> CCWG so we can determine how to better validate this responses > >>>>>>>>>> with the external legal advisors when we engage with said > external > >>>>>>>>>> advice. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I look forward to a fruitful session with all of you. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> León > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> <Accountability Questions for CCWG - from Jones Day.pdf> > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > >>>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > >>>>>>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail > >>>>>>>>> > man_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIET > >>>>>>>>> > eDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=qwBRSEcol5 > >>>>>>>>> > r4bZKf-_y9unJDayHfowmd9pjeG40pqTY&s=WWqaMuLlBAG_Gr0RU6ekSk08rpZDmHGFN6 > >>>>>>>>> WV735dTxo&e= > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> Jordan Carter > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Chief Executive > >>>>>>>>> *InternetNZ* > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) > >>>>>>>>> jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> > >>>>>>>>> Skype: jordancarter > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> /To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its > >>>>>>>>> potential./ > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > >>>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail > >>>>>>>>> > man_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIET > >>>>>>>>> > eDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=qwBRSEcol5 > >>>>>>>>> > r4bZKf-_y9unJDayHfowmd9pjeG40pqTY&s=WWqaMuLlBAG_Gr0RU6ekSk08rpZDmHGFN6 > >>>>>>>>> WV735dTxo&e= > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > >>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm > >>>>>>>> > an_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD > >>>>>>>> > ALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=qwBRSEcol5r4b > >>>>>>>> > ZKf-_y9unJDayHfowmd9pjeG40pqTY&s=WWqaMuLlBAG_Gr0RU6ekSk08rpZDmHGFN6WV73 > >>>>>>>> 5dTxo&e= > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > >>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma > >>>>>>> > n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL > >>>>>>> > C_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=qwBRSEcol5r4bZKf > >>>>>>> > -_y9unJDayHfowmd9pjeG40pqTY&s=WWqaMuLlBAG_Gr0RU6ekSk08rpZDmHGFN6WV735dTx > >>>>>>> o&e= > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > >>>>>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > >>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > >>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !

1 0

Fwd: Agenda item on Scheduling
by Jordan Carter Feb. 8, 2015

Feb. 8, 2015

Interested in thoughts from the CWG on this scheduling issue... best, Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: 8 February 2015 at 11:56 Subject: Agenda item on Scheduling To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > Dear co-chairs, I would like to request that we have enough time to discuss this week (and preferably in tomorrow's session, if we can) the schedule of work for this CCWG, and the scheduling links with the CWG and the ICG. I am sure it will be on the agenda, but I think it is very important for the whole ICANN community that by the end of this week in Singapore, we understand the viability or otherwise of the timetable. My initial thought is that we might be able to get *our* work done by June and in time for discussion at BA, but that the integration of this work with the CWG given their conditionality around accountability for the IANA functions indicated to us, is just simply going to be impossible to manage in the "best case". If we can end up with a "central case" then that will give the ICG time to review and rebuild its own schedule. If that schedule is longer, it might have the added benefit of reducing the head-long rush and the risk of exhaustion for those parts of the community taking part in this process. Looking forward to the conversation! bests, Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.* -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*

1 0