[CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Fri Apr 10 02:58:03 UTC 2015
+1 concern as expressed.
What is the reasoning behind such acceleration? The deadline is surely not
hard and fast?
I don't think I am aware of any penalty clauses imposed on timeline for the
Some explanation for current strategy may well be warranted at this
On Apr 9, 2015 9:03 PM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> I share your concern and like you I'm not going to be able to attend every
> general, subgroup and sub-subgroup meeting going forward. We all have lives
> away from ICANN and invariably there are going to be times when other
> aspects of our existence need to take priority. I'm just amazed and very
> grateful that there are those who are able to volunteer and donate such an
> incredible amount of time to our joint effort. This is an exceptional group
> of people.
> I'm very happy that our immediate deadline was shifted from early to late
> April at the Istanbul meeting. It helped. I too wish we could go forward at
> an even more reasoned and considered pace. I can't attend the meeting
> tonight or, frankly, a few other nights where they have been scheduled. I'm
> committed to this project but I'm also committed to attending my own
> birthday party later this month. I sort of need to be there for that. So be
> it. Our CCWG is not operating in isolation and I do understand the need for
> a tight deadline. I don't like it, but I do understand it.
> I do have one request, though, that would allow me to participate in as
> complete a manner as I can going forward given my own circumstances. Would
> it be possible, even at additional cost, to have staff or contracted help
> to produce complete transcripts of the CCWG and WP sessions on a maximum 24
> hour turnaround (or something approaching that)? My concern is that those
> of us who can't be at every meeting would either not participate in future
> sessions we could attend, feeling we weren't up to date on matters, or,
> even worse, would drag down future proceedings as we tried to understand
> that which we missed. Audio recordings are nice, but time consuming. Fast
> track transcripts, I think, could help alleviate some problems caused by
> the intensive work schedule.
> Thanks for considering,
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>
>> Dear co-chairs, dear all,
>> I find myself in agreement with Eberhard with regard to the steep increase
>> in the number of calls for both the CCWG as well as its subgroups like wp1
>> and acct-legal.
>> It frustrates me to see that, after a period during which we burned a lot
>> of time on -let me politely phrase it as „less relevant and/or out of
>> scope”- subjects and several of us warned against the deadline becoming
>> unreachable, we have know replaced the deadline that has become
>> unrealistic with a work planning that is simply absurd.
>> As a result, we now have roughly a two hour conference call every day of
>> the week, several days with two calls, and thus more calls in a week at
>> unholy hours.
>> I object to this way of working, as it makes the whole process far less
>> inclusive. Many of us have both a demanding job as well as a private life,
>> both of which we cherish. For me it is now simply unavoidable to miss a
>> significant part of the calls and impossible to deal with all the
>> necessary working groups’ work in-between them. I know that this is now
>> the case for quite a number of us.
>> We are rushing forward to reach a deadline which is nothing more by now
>> than a dead line, and in our hurry seem to accept that the process loses
>> inclusiveness, transparency and accountability, leaving us with an outcome
>> that will be of much lower quality.
>> I for one, find this unacceptable.
>> Best regards,
>> Roelof A. Meijer
>> SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O.
>> Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS
>> T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05
>> roelof.meijer at sidn.nl
>> | www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/>
>> On 08-04-15 14:15, "Dr Eberhard Lisse" <el at lisse.NA> wrote:
>> >Thank you very much.
>> >so next week 3 calls (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, the latter of which
>> >I could not make even if I wanted to (see below))?
>> >The following week another three (Monday, and 2 on Tuesday)?
>> >More than one call per week is already difficult enough to absorb,
>> >but three? And then two on one day? When we are already spending
>> >too much time on process and very little on substance?
>> >This is not conducive to thoughtful deliberation and as I have said
>> >numerous times I am opposed to rushing things through just because
>> >of a perceived deadline, which in our case does not even exist in
>> > I object to this.
>> >And while we are at it, I have asked NUMEROUS times to have the
>> >legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root and/or the IANA
>> >function researched by our legal advisers. I was told it would be
>> >done, but it has not from what I can see and my repeated requests in
>> >this regards have been ignored by the Co-Chairs.
>> >I have made several requests/suggestions in how to deal with the
>> >GAO, which the Co-Chairs do not agree with. Be that as it may, I
>> >reserve the rights to communicate my thoughts to the GAO as they
>> >have explicitly requested/suggested.
>> >I have extremely serious concerns about at least the passage of the
>> >German collaborative white paper (or whatever it is called), which
>> >as far as ccTLDs are concerned is totally our of order and
>> >unacceptable, in as much it suggests that ccTLD/ccNSO policy being
>> >taken over by governments (which as we all know is opposed to the
>> >USG's stated intent.
>> >The GAC Representative of Denmark has proposed in Istanbul during
>> >the ad-hoc Stress Test Breakfast, what I understand to be a total
>> >removal of ccNSO's policy making powers, in favor of governments
>> >deciding. Using the words "Out with the Old" he stated that the
>> >RFCs must be done away with. I am not clear whether this is the
>> >position of the Representative, his government or the GAC, but when
>> >read together with the above, this is not acceptable to me.
>> >I have not that many concerns with regards to Delegation of a ccTLD
>> >(after establishment), including a Transfer of an exsiting ccTLD.
>> >But as far as Revocation of an incumbent ccTLD Manager is concerned,
>> >I have stated numerous times, that we need to preserve the existing
>> >rights of incumbent ccTLD Managers.
>> >This is NOT negotiable.
>> >And the best way of doing this is by way of the Framework of
>> >Interpretation Principles.
>> >Mr Chehade has apparently in public (and on the record) accused
>> >senior ccTLD managers of not knowing how the IANA functions work.
>> >As a ccTLD Manager with 24 years uninterrupted service I tend to
>> >agree that I do not know how the IANA function is operated by the
>> >current Function Manager (ICANN), though I do have a really good
>> >idea how it SHOULD be operated.
>> >Therefor I have requested that Mr Chehade explain to us how this
>> >works. I can not find any feedback on this issue.
>> >Unless these issues are addressed to my satisfaction (and I am not
>> >saying that they must be resolved necessarily to my satisfaction) I
>> >shall, as a ccNSO appointed member, be formally objecting to any
>> >output of the CCWG-Accountability.
>> >I am circulating this to the usual ccTLD lists as well.
>> >greetings, el
>> >On 2015-04-08 12:10, Brenda Brewer wrote:
>> >> Hi Eberhard,
>> >> Please see attachment in pdf format.
>> >> Best,
>> >> Brenda
>> >Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
>> >el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
>> >PO Box 8421 \ /
>> >Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
>> >ccTLDcommunity mailing list
>> >ccTLDcommunity at cctld-managers.org
>> >To unsubscribe please send a blank email to
>> >ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe at lists.cctld-managers.org
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community