[CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18

Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Tue Oct 27 18:51:04 UTC 2015


There Arun, as I understood discussions within the GAC these three points are not „options”, but form a “package”. And they represent a consensus view from the GAC. In fact they all complement each other and made our consensus possible.

Regards

Jorge

Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Arun Mohan Sukumar
Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. Oktober 2015 19:12
An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On Stress Test 18

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<http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/>
+91-9871943272

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/>
+91-9871943272<tel:%2B91-9871943272>

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/>
+91-9871943272<tel:%2B91-9871943272>

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Finn Petersen <FinPet at erst.dk<mailto: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<mailto:arun.sukumar at orfonline.org>" <arun.sukumar at orfonline.org<mailto: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<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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151027/6d1b4c9d/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list