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

Sun Oct 11 21:23:10 UTC 2015

+1

On Oct 11, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<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<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