[CCWG-ACCT] Boating in January. Was: Work plan in January
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Wed Dec 30 15:49:49 UTC 2015
Dear Bruce,
Please find the following citations from the Board's comments (just as few
examples) on CCWG 3d proposals
see belows
*I**ntroductory Part *
“*The Board will have to consider whether its
concerns were addressed and *
*whether the final recommendations (including the
specifics within those recommendations) are in the
global public interest” *
Recommendation 1
Part A
“With regard to Paragraph 55, bullet 4, on the
community involvement in defining the public interest,
the Board supports that the development of a
definition of the “global public interest” should
involve the full community, including the Board.
That is aligned with the work that is already
underway and consistent with the strategic plan.
The language suggested by the CCWG for the
Articles of Incorporation should be modified, however,
to reflect that once developed, the organization
will be guided by a clear definition of global
public interest. The suggestion that “global public
interest” should be left to “interpretation” could
lead to
unpredictable and conflicting results, and the Board
sees an important role in helping to define the
global public interest as it relates to ICANN’s
Mission” “
PART C
*To reinforce the importance of the concerns raised
above, should the Board’s comments not be directly
addressed, the Board would have to consider, as
specified in the 16 October 2014 resolution,
whether it believes the specifics of the
recommendation meet the global public interest * *
Recommendation 5
“the Board would have to consider, as specified
in the 16 October 2014
resolution, whether it believes this recommendation
meets the public interest and whether there would
be a need to initiate a formal dialogue with
the CCWG over the proposed edits to the Mission
Statement. The Board’s concerns could be addressed
in other ways”.
Recommendation 7
“*To reinforce the importance of the concerns raised
above, should the Board’s comments not be directly
addressed, the Board would have to consider, as
specified in the 16 October 2014 resolution,
whether it believes the specifics of this
recommendation meet the global public interest and
whether there would be a need to initiate a
formal dialogue with the CCWG over the timing
of addressing the human rights issue. Set forth
here is a proposal that would address the
Board’s concerns. **The Board’s concerns could be
addressed in other ways*. ““
Recommendation 12
*Include the principles that were included in the
Board’s October 2014 resolution on consideration of
Work Stream 1 efforts, including: a requirement for
consensus recommendations; dialogue if the Board
believes that any of the recommendations *
* are not in the global public interest; requirement
**that a 2/3 vote of the Board is required to
reject any recommendation after consultation; and
agreement that the Board will not change the
consensus recommendations on its own. *
In these Examples the Board expressed its desire to change, revise, modify
or replace certain parts of a given Recommendations* .*
However, it made an ULTIMATUM that, if such changes, modifications,
replacement and ... are not accepted ,it WILL REJECT THESE TEXTS ON THE
GROPUND THAT THEY ARE INCONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTERTESTS ?
Since the board is not sure what would be the interpretation of public
interest see below
“Global public interest” should be left to
“interpretation” could lead to unpredictable and
conflicting results, and the Board sees an important
role in helping to define the global public
interest as it relates to ICANN’s Mission”
How ,on the one hand clearly specifies that there is no clear and agreed
definition for “GPI” and .on the other hand makes a recourse to the
undefined definition and intimidate that should the CCWG does accept
Board’s suggestion it will VETO THEM on the ground that they are
inconsistent with “GPI”?
May you please clarify the matter?
Kavouss
2015-12-30 14:44 GMT+01:00 Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>:
> Chris, Nigel,
>
> Let me get this clear: you guys can¹t participate in the calls in January
> because you¹re both on a boat trip?
>
> And Nigel wants to abandon the boat because Chris is in too? I can
> understand that, but would have expected it to be the other way around
> (not meaning the boat abandoning Nigel)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roelof
>
>
>
>
> On 30-12-15 13:03, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
> behalf of Nigel Roberts" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> on behalf of nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:
>
> >I'm very personally in the same boat.
> >
> >I have attempted to add some value to the process, but in view of the
> >nature (probably by design) of the proposed work-plan, I'm on the point
> >of abandoning all but the most superficial of participation.
> >
> >I'm sure others are in this boat with me ...
> >
> >On 30/12/15 11:28, Chris Disspain wrote:
> >> Hi Mathieu,
> >>
> >> Thanks for this. Do you have a proposed topic agenda yet. I won¹t be
> >> able to make all the calls (and I expect others will be in the same
> >> boat) so it would helpful to have an overarching agenda for the calls as
> >> soon as possible. Apologies if this has been sent already and I have
> >> missed it.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 30 Dec 2015, at 20:50 , Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> >>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear Kavouss, Dear Paul, All,
> >>>
> >>> Some of you have raised concerns about the work plan and the decision
> >>>to
> >>> schedule two calls a week, announced in my 24th December email.
> >>>
> >>> Participants to our meeting #73 will remember that this issue was
> >>> discussed during that call
> >>> (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56986612).
> >>>Key
> >>> take away was the need for plenary discussions rather than multiplying
> >>> subgroups.
> >>>
> >>> While we certainly recognize the different views expressed about the
> >>> timeline for delivering our final report, we are also trying to
> >>>organize
> >>> our calls in a manner that enables inclusive and informed debate about
> >>>the
> >>> comments received. 24 hours of calls in January "only" represent two
> >>>hours
> >>> of discussions per recommendation (leaving aside other types of issues
> >>> that we dedicate time on during our calls). Two hours to fully
> >>>understand
> >>> concerns and find a way forward that is acceptable to all.
> >>>
> >>> We hope that, by using a topic based agenda and providing a thorough
> >>> analysis of the comments received ahead of the call, we can make the
> >>>best
> >>> use of everyone's time during these calls, so that they can remain
> >>>driven
> >>> by the willingness to understand each of the concerns in good faith and
> >>> find common ground, as we have demonstrated in the past that our group
> >>>can
> >>> do.
> >>>
> >>> If needed and desired within the group, we might have to rely on
> >>>intensive
> >>> days (possibly on a week end) as some of you suggested, but we are
> >>>aware
> >>> of the challenges of such an approach and would like to avoid that as
> >>>much
> >>> as possible.
> >>>
> >>> As a follow up to the discussion that took place during our meeting
> >>>#73,
> >>> we will put these proposals for discussion during our next meeting, on
> >>> January 5th, and look forward to your further contributions and
> >>> suggestions.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Leon, Thomas & Mathieu
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151230/fe473e29/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list