[CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2
Nigel Roberts
nigel at channelisles.net
Mon Nov 2 16:49:09 UTC 2015
I think Greg is correct.
Besides which, you can redefine any terms you like, a court will still
construe them in accordance with the law.
On 02/11/15 15:02, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Trying to come up with a definition of "global public interest", whether
> by the Board, the Community or the Sole Designator (?) seems like a an
> effort that will either be endless or perilous. Baking it into the
> Bylaws seems like an awful idea.
>
> On Monday, November 2, 2015, Schaefer, Brett
> <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>> wrote:
>
> Mathieu,____
>
> __ __
>
> On the first point, is there a way to put in a time limit for Board
> consideration after the community settles on its recommendations? ____
>
> __ __
>
> Also, what is the threshold for the Board to reject the WS2
> recommendations? Are the recommendations piecemeal or tied together?
> ____
>
> __ __
>
> On the second point, I’d prefer the reverse. In other words, the
> Sole Designator should have to affirm or express support of the
> Board’s assertion of actions or policy in support of the global
> public interest (whatever that is). ____
>
> __ __
>
> Best,____
>
> __ __
>
> Brett ____
>
> __ __
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> BrettSchaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
> Security and Foreign Policy
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
>
> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>]
> *On Behalf Of *Mathieu Weill
> *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 7:31 AM
> *To:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community at icann.org');>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2____
>
> __ __
>
> Dear Colleagues, ____
>
> __ __
>
> After Dublin we have updated the section of the report related to
> work stream 2, taking into account the Dublin discussions. It is
> attached for your information, although it’s still work in progress.
> ____
>
> __ __
>
> The group is clearly taking Work Stream 2 seriously, and the
> transition bylaw article is meant to provide a basis to ensure that
> consensus recommendations are effectively implemented. ____
>
> __ __
>
> *Recommendation*: The CCWG-Accountability recommends that the Board
> adopt a transitional provision in its Bylaws which would commit
> ICANN to implement the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, and task
> the group with creating further enhancements to ICANN's
> accountability including, but not limited to the following list of
> issues (see below). This transitional provision must be incorporated
> in the Bylaws as part of Work Stream 1, prior to the IANA
> Stewardship Transition.____
>
> __ __
>
> I would also remind that we are considering to add to the Articles
> that Icann’s purpose includes a specific mention that would state : ____
>
> promoting the global public interest/_, as such global public
> interest may be determined from time to time by the multistakeholder
> community [as organized through the Sole Designator] through an
> inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process,_____/
>
> /______/
>
> This should also strengthen our WS2 efforts. ____
>
> __ __
>
> Best____
>
> Mathieu____
>
> __ __
>
> *De :*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>]
> *De la part de* Jyoti Panday
> *Envoyé :* samedi 31 octobre 2015 07:52
> *À :* Kieren McCarthy
> *Cc :* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community at icann.org');>
> *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2____
>
> __ __
>
> Dear All, ____
>
> I echo Kieren's concerns here. In addition I would like to ask if
> there is scope to include the ICG in the review of WS1 (which I
> believe they have been following closely due to names proposal) and
> WS2. I ask because they have an extended mandate till Sep 2016 and
> perhaps their involvement would be helpful in continuing the review
> and progress made by CCWG. It could also mean that the Board cannot
> unilaterally declare the work completed and sit on the
> recommendations as it has in the past. ____
>
> __ __
>
> Jyoti Panday ____
>
>
> On 30 Oct 2015, at 21:23, Kieren McCarthy <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kieren at kierenmccarthy.com');>> wrote:____
>
> A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this
> working group?
>
> Because one of the big problems identified in the past over
> ICANN accountability and transparency has been the fact that
> when a report is handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no
> longer exists.
>
> And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress
> has been lost until years later when another group is formed.
>
> I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work
> stream 1 limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most
> effective way to do that would be for the Board to simply
> declare this working group's work completed.
>
> Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did?
>
>
> Kieren____
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc at gmail.com');>>
> wrote:____
>
> All,____
>
> __ __
>
> There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG
> regarding items that are currently assigned to Work Stream
> 2. In both cases, the "scope of work" to be accomplished in
> Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2 happening as we
> envision it. This in turn depends on how well we defend,
> protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're
> doing now.____
>
> __ __
>
> I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen. ____
>
> __ __
>
> The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work
> Stream 2 and re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at
> "continuous improvement," which I take to mean the usual
> processes already in place for ICANN to engage in
> self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and
> other AoC reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert
> working groups, staff-and-board initiatives, etc.). ____
>
> __ __
>
> I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks
> like and that would basically be the kiss of death (or at
> least an extended coma). Work Stream 2 is a work stream of
> this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so that it stands
> apart from the usual business of self-improvement. WS2 is
> basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1.____
>
> __ __
>
> Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place
> because we agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went
> forward, even without the "leverage" of the upcoming
> transition. This has to be absolutely re-confirmed and
> guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and
> there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes
> the Board) on that point. ____
>
> __ __
>
> If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as
> planned -- if we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically
> nothing but a list of future chores to get around to at some
> point and under the usual methods -- if WS2 is no more real
> than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just
> an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding
> ourselves, bring all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and
> deal with it as best we can.____
>
> __ __
>
> *We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work
> Stream 2 for this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.*____
>
> __ __
>
> __ __
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list