[CCWG-ACCT] RES: Objection to our present work planning

Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br
Fri Apr 10 14:09:22 UTC 2015

Dear CCWG-colleagues,

We would also like to support the concerns expressed by other colleagues with respect to the current working schedule of the CCWG-Accountability. 

In its accountability review position paper from 27th September 2014, the Brazilian Government has expressed the following:

.         "Interested parties should not rush into decisions that might be later on challenged based on allegations they were made in a process that was not inclusive or transparent enough";

In line with what was stated above, we believe that an aggressive work schedule as the one which was set up for the next months - and in particular for the next weeks - may defeat the purpose of this very exercise being an inclusive process aimed at being considered legitimate by the wider stakeholder community. 

>From a government perspective - which sometime entails complex and long decision-making processes -  it is extremely difficult (not to say impossible) to cope with the amount of issues that are being dealt with within this group in a short period of time. 

>From our viewpoint, the current discussions being carried out within the various Working Parties of the CCWG are of extreme importance and should therefore be based on a better informed participation of all members/participants, which requires appropriate reading and reflection time. Moreover, given the incipient involvement of the law firms in the process, the potential value of their expertise may not be taken into account in its full extent if we impose them short deadlines for advice.

That being said, we propose the next call of the CCWG be devoted to reviewing the timeline and devising meaningful solutions to conciliate the delivery expectations put upon us with our ability to produce well-thought and valuable accountability recommendations.

Kind regards,

Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI)
Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil
T: + 55 61 2030-6609

Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
Division of Information Society (DI)
Ministry of External Relations - Brazil
T: + 55 61 2030-6609

-----Mensagem original-----
De: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Em nome de Julia Katja Wolman
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 10 de abril de 2015 10:44
Para: accountability-cross-community at icann.org; 'Mathieu Weill'; Thomas Rickert
Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning

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,








Julia Katja Wolman


Dahlerups Pakhus
Langelinie Allé 17
DK-2100 København Ø
Telephone: +45 3529 1000
Direct: +45 35291308
E-mail: jukacz at erst.dk


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] 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. 


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. 



	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...



Cheryl Langdon-Orr ...  (CLO)



 Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me<http://d13pix9kaak6wt.cloudfront.net/signature/colorbar.png> 




		On 10 April 2015 at 11:03, 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> 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
		SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O.
		Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS
		T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 <tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2000>  | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 <tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775>  | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 <tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005> 
		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 <tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733>  (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


		Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
		Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org


	Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
	Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org


Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list