[CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers Chart, Voluntary Model

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Dear Co-Chairs,

please inform our colleague that appearances can be deceiving and in any case I have rows of witnesses that I didn't.

I am however willing to explain to him in person what the variation of the well known Usenet Abbreviation ROFL means.

Greetings, el
-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Jun 19, 2015, at 19:06, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Co-Chairs,
> 
> Please inform our colleague that he appears to have sat on his device.
> 
> Regards,
> Keith 
> 
> 
> On Jun 19, 2015, at 7:02 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:
> 
>> ROTLPIMPHMSBAH
>> 
>> el
>> 
>> -- 
>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
>> 
>> On Jun 19, 2015, at 17:35, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at actonline.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes it does. I apologize. I was challenging the efficacy of a proposed accountability mechanism and was asked to support my argument. I probably should have ignored what was likely a rhetorical request but I didn't.
>>> 
>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>> From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse
>>> Sent: ‎6/‎19/‎2015 5:28 PM
>>> To: CCWG Accountability
>>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard
>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers Chart, Voluntary Model
>>> 
>>> Dear Ch-Chairs,
>>> 
>>> not that I disagree, but does this not conflict with the "modest proposal" ventilated by same on 2015-04-31?
>>> 
>>> greetings, el
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jun 19, 2015, at 15:48, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at actonline.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Sigh. Okay.
>>>> Failed thus far to develop binding accountability mechanisms.
>>>> Failed to adhere to policies around publication of documents prior to meetings.
>>>> Failed to prevent decision making prior to termination of comment periods.
>>>> Developed no standard for review during the previous attempt at accountability reform (2006?)
>>>> Failed to develop public metrics to hold ICANN institutions to account (such as contract compliance)
>>>> Failed to listen to community consensus on singular/plural and controlled the outcome of the redress mechanisms through overly narrow mandate.
>>>> Pushed ahead with new gTLD program despite a lack of operational readiness, again without consequences.
>>>> Launched a staff lead review of the new gTLD program prior to any input from the community.
>>>> Scheduled new round of applications (at least initially) prior to scheduled reviews.
>>>> Failed to reign in the Net Mundial initiative despite community objection or specify any consequences for secret board resolutions, etc.
>>>> Accepted the GC advice to protect the corporation instead of the public interest. 
>>>> Weakened rather than strengthened the IRP. 
>>>> Allowed staff to unilaterally change community agreement on registry agreements and imposed the unilateral right to amend registry agreements. 
>>>> Failed to implement half of the ATRT1 recommendations, again without consequences.
>>>> Supported the practice of passing off all responsibility to third parties so ICANN has no risk. (.SUCKS is the latest example)
>>>> First attempted to prevent an accountability component to the IANA transition and then tried to control it, insert experts, etc. rather than trusting the community to organize itself.
>>>> 
>>>> Just a few thoughts off the top of my head. Your turn.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Jonathan Zuck
>>>> President
>>>> ACT: The App Association
>>>> http://Www.ACTonline.org
>> [...]
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150619/92967557/attachment.html>