[CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning

Fri Apr 10 09:54:19 UTC 2015

+ 1 to the concerns raise. I have really lost track in the process.

WISDOM DONKOR
Sosftware / Network Engineer
Web/Open Government Platform Portal Specialist
National Information Technology Agency (NITA)
Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana
Tel; +233 20 812881
Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
wisdom.dk at gmail.com
Skype: wisdom_dk
facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh
www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com>
wrote:

> +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 community's deliberation.
> Some explanation for current strategy may well be warranted at this
> juncture.
> RD
> On Apr 9, 2015 9:03 PM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>
>> Roelof,
>>
>> 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,
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>> CEO
>>>
>>> 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
>>> >reality.
>>> >
>>> >       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
>>> >http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
>>> >
>>> >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
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150410/0b00abd0/attachment.html>