[CCWG-ACCT] [Cctldworld] Today's practice examination question: ICANN CEO on the CWG members . .

Wed Mar 25 12:06:00 UTC 2015

As someone who has observed fadi and Crocker it is fair to assure you that the anger from fadi emanates from Crocker who has been trying to separate IANA from the US government. Fadi is the mouth, so to speak, for Crocker. Fadi is into meeting records stating, repeatedly, he has to take the matter to Crocker.

It is about money and control, it meaning possessing IANA. The privatization began in the Oval. Neither the oval and Crocker were pleased that Postel tried to hijack the DNS.

I guess my curiosity is how Artie's to this can be part of this process for over two decades and no one took time to make sure participants like El and Keith and others are in the dark as to how the system works from the ground up.

You saw frustration from fadi because the 'volunteer' community has not been doing what the Chair wants done and as fast as he wants it done.

Carrie Devorah
www.crnterforcopyrightintegrity.com

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 25, 2015, at 5:57 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Co-Chairs,
> 
> please review the enclosed emails.
> 
> I do agree with Rod Chehade that in spite of my 24 years uninterrupted experience as ccTLD Manager I have no clue how the IANA function manager works.
> 
> I only know how it SHOULD work. And so do my colleagues.
> 
> But that is easily solved, and in the spirit of Accountability, we must now ask him to explain to us how this actually works.
> 
> Since the NTIA and Congress seem to wish to have a consensus proposal from CWG and CCWG-Accountabilty and I would think that until such time we know, there can be no such thing.
> 
> Hence herewith my request to the co-chairs of CCWG-Accountability to discuss this with counterparts of CWG today in Istanbul and the obtain the information from the CEO, as a matter of urgency.
> 
> greetings, el
> 
> -- 
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
> 
> 
>> On Mar 25, 2015, at 11:54, Danny Aerts <danny.aerts at iis.se> wrote:
>> 
>> Martin,
>> 
>> It is nice that you explained to me Fadi's message and I am aware of the challenges for the CWG. I react on the stressed tone and aggressiveness of the CEO of ICANN who basically calls representatives of our community (including staff from my organization) for incompetent because they do not deliver the "outcome" on the expected deadline. This is maybe how you steer a company but not a multi-stakeholder process.
>> 
>> Danny Aerts
>> VD/CEO
>> .SE (Stiftelsen för Internetinfrastruktur) Ringvägen 100, Box 7399
>> 103 91 Stockholm
>> Växel: 08-452 35 00, direkt: 08-452 35 61,
>> mobil: 070- 990 5489
>> E-post: danny.aerts at iis.se
>> Webbplats: www.iis.se
>> 
>> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
>> Från: cctldworld-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cctldworld-bounces at icann.org] För Martin Boyle
>> Skickat: den 24 mars 2015 23:41
>> Till: Keith Davidson; cctldworld at icann.org
>> Ämne: Re: [Cctldworld] Today's practice examination question: ICANN CEO on the CWG members . .
>> 
>> I'd love to join Keith in saying that I really know how the IANA functions work, but I can't, even though I', on the ICG and follow the CWG-IANA, so derided.  
>> 
>> I would note, however, that we are looking for some way of ensuring oversight for the IANA functions to replace the US Government role and that it is important to ensure that we maintain a reasonable quality of service to us, the customers, without capture of the function and (much more important from an operational point of view) that we do not have to sell our souls to ensure that the requested changes are provided.
>> 
>> So I have some resonance with Fadi's message, that we do need to build in service level commitments and practical delivery.  However, I also recognise that the history of ICANN's top-down imposition of rules (such as those that soured ICANN-ccTLD relations in the early years) cannot be repeated.  The potential to remove the IANA from ICANN if it tried to do that again is attractive (except to ICANN, obviously), but it should be seen as such - a remote possibility.
>> 
>> Being controversial, this "nuclear option" has taken a lot of airtime both in the CWG and in ICANN CEO thinking.  But since this intervention by Fadi in Singapore, a lot has changed:
>> 
>> * the CWG has focussed its thinking more on all the more normal operational stuff - like resolving issues and continuing to assure a professional service delivery - with as customer-serviced an understanding as possible;
>> 
>> * ICANN enhanced accountability has also developed, including thinking about how to respond to systemic service failure or unreasonable impositions.
>> 
>> So without this message, I think many - including the ignoramuses (like me) - had already recognised the importance of getting a coherent plan in place and have been working on it for a good long while.
>> 
>> What is really important is that we do get views from the ccTLD community to support our work.  Not for the reasons that Fadi mentioned about a lack of knowledge of your representatives:  (leaving me out of it) there are good ccTLD reps involved who (as Keith flags) have been instrumental in shaping the IANA.  But for showing a clear front about what we consider to be the things we need (and the safeguards we want in place) from the IANA function going forward.
>> 
>> Input welcome!
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cctldworld-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cctldworld-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Keith Davidson
>> Sent: 24 March 2015 23:54
>> To: cctldworld at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [Cctldworld] Today's practice examination question: ICANN CEO on the CWG members . .
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 25/03/2015 6:27 a.m., Nigel Roberts wrote:
>>> According to Fadi Chehade**, reported by The Register today:
>>> 
>>> "There is no one today in the CWG [Community Working Group] who even 
>>> understands how the functions work."
>> 
>> I am one of those people that Fadi refers to, on the CWG, and I know a whole heap more about the IANA functions than Fadi does. I am aghast and insulted by what Fadi says. It is beyond his comprehension that the multistakeholder consensus decision making process is slow and arduous. 
>> It is also beyond his comprehension that he might very well be wrong.
>> 
>> It is not very often that I publicly comment on any individual or their actions, but I am sufficiently appalled by Fadi's statements throughout the Singapore meeting. And he personally attacked me during a private meeting there also, something I found totally unprofessional and inappropriate. So I guess if the only chance to retaliate is to be equally rude, then I feel justified in this response.
>> 
>> </rant>
>> 
>> Keith
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cctldworld mailing list
>> Cctldworld at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cctldworld mailing list
>> Cctldworld at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cctldworld mailing list
>> Cctldworld at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150325/4d0a59b8/attachment.html>