[CCWG-ACCT] Where do we stand? (Was Re: Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin)

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Oct 11 14:00:53 UTC 2015


Dear Co -Chairs
Perhaps it is the time that you make a sum up of all these contradictory
statements and provide the status of discussions.
Expectant  your reaction, I remain .


Kavouss

Now Questions to

To Bruce

or Chairman of the Board

I formally request you or the chairman of the Board to clearly provide the
position of the Board taking into account apparent discrepancies between
the statements and testimony already made since the creation of CCWG.


The Board needs to explicitly and clearly reply to the following questions


1. Question 1,





Irrespective of previous statements and or testimony, does the Board accept
or reject the CMSM as it is on 11 October 2015?





2. Question 2,





Irrespective of previous statements and or testimony, does the Board accept
or Reject the Sole Designator Model?





3. Question 3





Under the MEM, how the MEM Issue Group functions?  Does it need to form an
Unincorporated Association among the members of the Group?





4. Question 4,








At what Occasion/Time or under what circumstances the MEM Issue Group will
be established





5. Question 5





Who are the members of the MEM Issue Group?





6. Question 6


Is there a quorum for the MEM Issue Group?


6.1 What are the criteria for that Quorum?


6.2 If the quorum is met, then how the decision will be made?


6.2.1 By adoption of a resolution on consensus basis? Please confirm; or


6.2.2 By Voting of SOs ACs; Pleases confirm





7. Question 7





What happens if the Quorum is not reached?


7.1    The case is dead? Then the community power is not implemtable?


7.2    Then what after?





8. Question 8





How the SOs and ACs conclude on a given petition?


8.1 By adoption of a resolution on consensus basis? Please confirm; or


8.2 By Voting in SOs and Consensus in ACs ; Pleases confirm





9. Question 9


In case that the members of the Issue MEM Group are chairs of the SOs and
ACs


9.1 What is the fiduciary and accountability status of each of those chairs
of SOs and ACs?


9.2 What happens, if one or more chairs refrain to take the required action
on proceeding with Binding arbitration, IN case the Unincorporated
Association is not established and thus individual So and AC leaders has to
/ forced to individually file an arbitration ?


9.3 How many SO /AC leaders are required to initiate to file an
arbitration? Or one is sufficient?


9.4 In the latter case ,what would be the status of the arbitration if only
supported 7 initiated by one SO /AC while other SOs and ACs refrain from
initiation?


10. Question 10





101. What is the relation between Mem Issue Group and Standing Panel?
10.2  What is the relation between Standing Panel and IRP?


103.  Which subjects are submitted to Standing Panel and which subject are
submitted to IRP





11. Question 11


Should the outcome from MEM Issue Group be on consensus basis ,why mem
requires that the decision should be valid unless there is one advice from
an AC against it ? Doesn’t it mean that one AC consensus advice is
sufficient to kill the outcome? Doesn’t it mean by having one AC consensus
advice against the issue and vetoing the case that AC alone will capture
the entire MEN Issue Group?





12. Question 12


If all those questions are satisfactorily replied, is there any guarantee
that the CWG requirements to implement PTI process would are fully met ?





Kavouss







2015-10-11 6:47 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:

> Hello Avri,
>
> Thanks for your response, I will not really attempt to address your view
> so this does not distract from the essence of starting this thread.
>
> I think we have quite a number of differing individual opinion and it gets
> so high at times that we miss the directions from the Co-Chairs.
>
> I will really appreciate that the Co-Chairs specifically provide response
> to this question so we have an idea of what page we are officially at in
> this process.
>
> Regards
> PS: Co-Chairs may also just put a stamp on what Avri has said if that's
> their understanding as well.
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 10 Oct 2015 20:32, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> (I know this was addressed to the co-chairs and i am not one, yet I
>> presume to have an opinion on the subject)
>>
>> As far as I understood we are, in parallel:
>>
>> a. analyzing  and trying to respond to the comments, including those by
>> the Board, made about defects in explanation and design in the SM model
>> of Draft 2
>> b. analyzing the MEM counter proposal made by the Board
>>
>> I disagree with your claim that working on the SM model is impractical.
>> It is still the model that responds to the largest number of community
>> concerns and best meets the CWG requirements.
>>
>> The suggestion by Steve D. is just that, a suggestion. I do not believe
>> that there is a consensus in the group, at least not yet, about taking
>> that path.  Many, myself among them, have argued that we are not
>> comfortable with putting off the major accountability changes that are
>> required by the loss of NTIA. Yes, we need to prune and make sure that
>> the changes we work on are necessary for WS1, but given the
>> uncertainties about the post transition and any possible WS2, we must
>> make sure that the WS1 solution is sufficient.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 10-Oct-15 14:53, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Co-Chairs,
>> >
>> > FWIW, I think at this point, it will be good to have an understanding
>> > of where we are heading from the Co-Chairs. In some discussions it
>> > seem we have understood and agreed that a model that implies a
>> > structural change is impractical during this transition phase hence
>> > the suggestion made by Steve.
>> >
>> > Yet in other discussions it seem we are going ahead with the
>> > structural change model irrespective of the concerns raised from parts
>> > of the community and board.
>> >
>> > In other to prepare towards Dublin and contribute in a meaningful way,
>> > I think a summary of where we are presently and what is expected to be
>> > achieved in Dublin will be helpful. I apologise if this has already
>> > been shared, and in that case a pointer will be appreciated.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
>> > Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>> >
>> > On 10 Oct 2015 19:37, "Stephen Deerhake" <sdeerhake at nic.as
>> > <mailto:sdeerhake at nic.as>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     Paul,
>> >
>> >     Perhaps the Board chair is articulating a minority viewpoint?
>> >     Afterall, the
>> >     Board will have to vote on the matter of sending/not sending the
>> >     output of
>> >     the CCWG on to NTIA.
>> >
>> >     Stephen Deerhake
>> >
>> >     -----Original Message-----
>> >     From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> >     <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
>> >     [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> >     <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] On
>> >     Behalf Of Paul
>> >     Rosenzweig
>> >     Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:05 AM
>> >     To: 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
>> >     <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>; 'Accountability Cross
>> >     Community' <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> >     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>> >     Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work
>> >     headed to
>> >     Dublin
>> >
>> >     With respect Bruce, I share Anne's view that this is not
>> >     accurate.  The
>> >     Board chair has stated unequivocally that the Board will not submit
>> a
>> >     Membership based proposal.  That is contrary to the statement that
>> >     the Board
>> >     will submit any proposal it receives from the CCWG "as is."  That is
>> >     categorically ruling out one type of "as is" proposal.
>> >
>> >     If you are seriously telling me that even after all this back and
>> >     forth the
>> >     Board actually would submit a "Membership only" based proposal to
>> >     the NTIA
>> >     then I would respectfully say that the Board has done a very poor
>> >     job of
>> >     communicating.
>> >
>> >     So ... answer this question please as directly as you are
>> >     willing:  If,
>> >     today, the CCWG having considered but declined to accept the
>> >     Board's input
>> >     were to submit a proposal based upon a Membership organization
>> >     would the
>> >     Board transmit it to the NTIA as the ICANN proposal?
>> >
>> >     Paul
>> >
>> >     Paul Rosenzweig
>> >     paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> >     <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>> >     O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
>> >     M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
>> >     VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
>> >     Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>> >     Link to my PGP Key
>> >
>> >
>> >     -----Original Message-----
>> >     From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
>> >     <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>]
>> >     Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:03 PM
>> >     To: 'Accountability Cross Community'
>> >     <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> >     <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>> >     Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work
>> >     headed to
>> >     Dublin
>> >
>> >     Hello Paul,
>> >
>> >     Regarding:
>> >
>> >       https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
>> >
>> >     The statement still holds.
>> >
>> >     The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has
>> >     stated all
>> >     along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not wait
>> >     for a
>> >     final proposal to raise any concerns.
>> >
>> >     Regards,
>> >     Bruce Tonkin
>> >
>> >
>> >     _______________________________________________
>> >     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
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20151011/30d3cae2/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list