[CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Fri Apr 10 14:04:47 UTC 2015


+1 to the commendation and suggestion

Thanks

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 10 Apr 2015 14:54, "Julia Katja Wolman" <jukacz at erst.dk> wrote:

>  Dear Co-Chairs, Colleagues,
>
>
>
> Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your hard
> work and commitment to this important work.
>
>
>
> Secondly, acknowledging that this is an iterative process and the
> challenges of the timeline it is however challenging to follow where we
> are in all of the issues under discussion. We are fast approaching a stage
> where it is crucial to have an overview/clarity of all the bits and pieces
> of the work going on in the CCWG. Therefore I would kindly ask if all of
> the most recent versions of the key documents under discussion could be
> sent in one email to the CCWG list before the next CCWG meeting on Tuesday
> 14 April. This would be much appreciated.
>
>
>
> Good weekend to you all,
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Julia
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Julia Katja Wolman*
>
> *DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY*
>
> Dahlerups Pakhus
> Langelinie Allé 17
> DK-2100 København Ø
> Telephone: +45 3529 1000
> Direct: +45 35291308
> E-mail: jukacz at erst.dk
> www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk
>
> MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH
>
> P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Fra:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *På vegne af *Mathieu
> Weill
> *Sendt:* 10. april 2015 13:50
> *Til:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Emne:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> This is to mention that, as co chairs, we are closely monitoring this
> discussion. As you know, we introduced this new work plan during the last
> CCWG call, meeting at the time no objection. We are however receptive to
> the concerns raised and welcome constructive inputs.
>
> Since I have just finished our CCWG-CWG co-chair coordination call, I can
> however confirm that the main reason for meeting the target date we set in
> Istanbul remains very much up to date : the CWG needs clarity on our
> proposals to confirm its own options. Delay on our side might jeopardize
> their timeline, which in turn affects the ICG, etc.
>
> We will get back to the group on Monday, once we also have greater clarity
> on the status of work party progress.
>
> Thanks to all of you for your commitment and inputs, which we encourage to
> focus on the working party inputs at this precise point.
>
> Mathieu
>
> Le 10/04/2015 07:34, Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit :
>
>  No, Cheryl, it is not, with all due respect to Ed.
>
>
>
> It is again fiddling with process and not dealing with substance.
>
>
>
> el
>
> --
>
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 10, 2015, at 04:20, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>   This is an *Excellent* suggestion in my humble opinion Ed...
>
>
>
>
> *C**heryl **L**angdon-**O**rr ...  *(CLO)
>
>
>
> about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
>
> [image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10 April 2015 at 11:03, 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
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> --
>
> *****************************
>
> Mathieu WEILL
>
> AFNIC - directeur général
>
> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
>
> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
>
> *****************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150410/476adc8a/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list