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

[Greg Shatan]

I look forward to the Co-Chairs' summary.

I feel the need to reject the following statement by Seun as baseless and
inaccurate:

 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
> ​ [DelBianco]​
> .


I understand that some (including Seun) feel this way.  But there is no
basis for saying "we have ... agreed" with this statement.  Of course, I
may be reading the statement incorrectly; I am assuming that "we" refers to
the CCWG (or the the CCWG Members, of which I am not one, but who in any
event should be guided by their stakeholder organizations).  If "we" refers
to some other group (such as those who agree with the statement) then maybe
it is accurate.  Otherwise, no way.

I find that the surest way *not* to come to an agreement is to pretend it
has already been reached.  It tend to inflame, rather than convince, those
who disagree or who are weighing their position.

Finally, a general "+1" to Avri's statements in this thread.

Greg

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
wrote:

> Dear Seun, all,
>
> This request for a summary of where we stand is well understood, and
> perfectly appropriate at this point. Our plan is to provide such a quick
> summary before Dublin.
>
> Until then, you can refer to :
> - the summary we provided during last week ccwg call (available in
> recording or through the notes)
> - the slides that I shared in my email "update from Brussels", which I
> used to update the centr meeting.
>
> Feedback regarding our summaries is and will be welcome of course.
>
> Many thanks to those, especially Avri, who provided detailed inputs to
> that request as well.
>
> Best,
>
> Mathieu Weill
> ---------------
> Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
>
> Le 10 oct. 2015 à 20:54, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> 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> 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] On Behalf Of
>> Paul
>> Rosenzweig
>> Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:05 AM
>> To: 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>; 'Accountability
>> Cross
>> Community' <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
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>> Link to my PGP Key
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bruce Tonkin [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>
>> 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
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151011/30319476/attachment.html>