[CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
Jonathan Zuck
JZuck at actonline.org
Sun Apr 12 03:33:58 UTC 2015
Seems to me that some sort of objective measure can be used to determine whether the community has secured enough leverage to ensure its desires for WS2 will be realized.
Jonathan Zuck
President
202-331-2130 X 101 | jzuck at actonline.org<mailto:jzuck at actonline.org> | Skype: jvzuck
ACT | The App Association
[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/twitter.png]<https://twitter.com/actonline>
[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/fb.png]<https://www.facebook.com/actonline.org>
[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6442666/actonline.png]<http://actonline.org>
________________________________
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 6:50 PM
To: avri at acm.org
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning
Who would define what is in WS1A? The CCWG or the CWG?
J
On Sunday, 12 April 2015, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
Makes sense to me. I agree that some of the grander plans for rebuilding the ICANN governance structure may be difficult to sort out in the next few days.
However, the actual required contents of WS1A may vary baside on whether CWG-IANA picks the fully internal model or the affiliated model. Until they make that decsion it may be hard to minimize the requirements for WS1a.
Hopefully the CWG will be able to resolve this issue in its Monday/Tuesday intense meeting schedule.
avri
On 10-Apr-15 15:37, Greg Shatan wrote:
I am less concerned with (and also less surprised by) the current acceleration in the CCWG's work.
However, if the group does decide to triage its work, I suggest we look at solutions other than simply extending the timeline. Specifically, I suggest the following:
Split Work Stream 1 into 2 parts:
* WS1A: Items that are required by the CWG-IANA in order to present a complete proposal -- i.e., clear and necessary dependencies.
* WS1B: Items that the CCWG believes must be in place prior to the transition, but which are not "clear and necessary dependencies" of the CWG-IANA proposal.
WS1A really needs to stay on the current timeframe. This work is intertwined and interdependent with the CWG. Without it, there is a very significant risk that the CWG's work product will be perceived as so incomplete that it will be difficult for some groups to give reasonable comments. Under this proposal, the Draft Report on the 21st would be limited to the WS1A items.
WS1B would then be put to the side while WS1A is completed for the Draft Proposal. It would then be worked on immediately after the proposal goes out. It could then be the subject of a separate draft report to come out a few (or more than a few) weeks hence.
This would lighten the load and allow us to focus on fewer moving parts, while still meeting the timeline with the most time-sensitive part of our deliverable.
I look forward to comments on this proposed solution.
Greg Shatan
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Alice Munyua <alice at dotafrica.org> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
We also support concerns raised by our colleagues regarding our rather aggressive working schedule and agree with Brazil and Denmark that it may defeat the purpose of inclusiveness. Particularly taking into consideration that some stakeholders like governments have to reflect and consult widely to enable informed and meaningful participation.
We support the proposal to review the timelines and explore solutions to address and manage the various expectations.
Best regards
Alice Munyua
On 10/04/2015 19:28, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
+1 to Julias comment. There is a risk of losing too many people at this speed, where I feel some comments and positions might be lost down the road, just because their proponents are not able to follow each and every meeting.
Regards
Jorge Cancio
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 10.04.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Julia Katja Wolman <jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>>:
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<tel:%2B45%203529%201000>
Direct: +45 35291308<tel:%2B45%2035291308>
E-mail: jukacz at erst.dk<mailto:jukacz at erst.dk>
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk><http://www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk><http://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> [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<mailto: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<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>> wrote:
This is an *Excellent* suggestion in my humble opinion Ed...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... (CLO)
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr<http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr><http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr><http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>
On 10 April 2015 at 11:03, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2000><tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2000> | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775<tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775><tel:%2B31%20%280%296%2011%20395%20775> | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05<tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005><tel:%2B31%20%280%2926%20352%2055%2005>
roelof.meijer at sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer at sidn.nl>
| www.sidn.nl<http://www.sidn.nl><http://www.sidn.nl><http://www.sidn.nl> <http://www.sidn.nl/><http://www.sidn.nl/>
On 08-04-15 14:15, "Dr Eberhard Lisse" <el at lisse.NA<mailto: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<mailto:el at lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733<tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733><tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733><tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell)
PO Box 8421 \ /
Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
_______________________________________________
ccTLDcommunity mailing list
ccTLDcommunity at cctld-managers.org<mailto: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<mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe at lists.cctld-managers.org>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006>
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto: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
________________________________
[Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/>
--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150412/c99c4e40/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list