[CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18

[Arun Mohan Sukumar]

Hi Olga,

This is the operative part of the Dublin communique on ST18.

The GAC considered:

1. The need that each and every Advisory Committee ensures that the advice
provided is clear and reflects the consensus view of the Committee;
2. The need that each and every Advisory Committee should preserve its own
autonomy in its definition of consensus;
3. The value the Board attributes to receiving consensus advice;

.... the GAC agreed to further work on the issue of Stress Test 18...

These 3 options considered by the GAC are as different as chalk and cheese.
What might an objective analysis of them be?  If, as Greg says, the issue
is settled, why didn't the GAC simply accept the stress test?

I have no fight in this either, so I'm very much looking to hear a more
informed take on the Communique.

Best,
Arun


-- 
Head, Cyber Initiative
Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
http://amsukumar.tumblr.com
+91-9871943272

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Arun,
>
> This is not my fight, but I don't understand your position.  Your reliance
> on the 3 March 2015 email is incorrect on its face -- it does not say that
> Denmark opposed Stress Test 18.
>
> In any event you have the email intervention from Finn Petersen (signed
> "GAC - Dk") asking you tor correct it.  I don't think you need any further
> requests from Denmark to correct your article.  It would be the responsible
> thing to do.
>
> If this remains uncorrected, in combination with the passage that Olga
> Cavalli quoted, it gives the appearance that your article is a stick
> stirring the ashes, hoping to rekindle a fire that has gone out, rather
> than a serious piece of reporting or analysis.  I hope that you did not
> intend to be a pyromaniac -- it would be a waste of your time and skills,
> and counterproductive in the larger scheme of things.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Arun Mohan Sukumar <
> arun.sukumar at orfonline.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Greg - I would need to link to an e-mail intervention from DK or
>> GAC meeting transcripts (when Dublin ones are out) to make this correction.
>> Saying this post the article's publication is not quite the same.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> --
>> Head, Cyber Initiative
>> Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
>> http://amsukumar.tumblr.com
>> +91-9871943272
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Arun,
>>>
>>> I just read the email you referred to.  It does not support the
>>> proposition that Stress Test 18 is unacceptable to Denmark, or even that
>>> Denmark has a position on Stress Test 18.  It is a fairly nuanced and
>>> non-dispositive email, contributing to the overall discourse at the time it
>>> was written.  Furthermore, it was written 3 March 2015, which in "CCWG
>>> time" is several millennia ago -- a further reason not to rely on it as a
>>> statement of "position" in late October.
>>>
>>> I suggest that you do not need to wait for further instructions from
>>> Denmark in order to correct your piece, especially since Denmark has
>>> already told you in no uncertain terms that "your statement concerning
>>> Denmark is wrong!!!!"
>>>
>>> I look forward to reading the revised version of your article.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Greg Shatan
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Arun Mohan Sukumar <
>>> arun.sukumar at orfonline.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Finn, this is what I went by:
>>>> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/2015-March/000071.html
>>>>
>>>> If the Danish position has changed, happy to correct.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Head, Cyber Initiative
>>>> Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
>>>> http://amsukumar.tumblr.com
>>>> +91-9871943272
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Finn Petersen <FinPet at erst.dk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Arun,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts - here is one!
>>>>>
>>>>> You write "Several countries, notably Brazil, Spain, Denmark and
>>>>> Argentina, see the proposed modification as unacceptable."
>>>>>
>>>>> Why did you include Denmark in the group of countries that oppose ST18
>>>>>  - your statement concerning Denmark is wrong!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Please correct this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Finn, GAC - Dk
>>>>>
>>>>> Sendt fra min iPad
>>>>>
>>>>> Den 27. okt. 2015 kl. 17.42 skrev "arun.sukumar at orfonline.org" <
>>>>> arun.sukumar at orfonline.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>> CCWGers, plugging here a post I wrote on discussions around Stress
>>>>> Test 18.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://blogs.cfr.org/cyber/2015/10/27/governments-v-icann-the-last-battle-before-the-iana-transition/
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts welcome!
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Arun
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>
>>>>> Head, Cyber Initiative
>>>>> Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
>>>>> http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/
>>>>> Ph: +91-9871943272
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/20151027/4db11033/attachment.html>