[CCWG-ACCT] Blog: Working Together Through The Last Mile
Seun Ojedeji
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Tue Sep 8 17:47:08 UTC 2015
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 8 Sep 2015 18:00, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:
>
> But ICANN, as a collective entity, to those of us who were there at its
beginnings needs to continually prove it is worthy of trust.
>
SO:
Holding on to the "collective" word used seem to be an indication that the
entire entity does needs to prove its worthiness. I definitely agree to
that and deep down, I hope we can put the question to ourselves asking
whether the current CCWG proposal meets that requirement OR whether it just
an attempt to transfer power from one side to the other.
> Because back then, it wasn't.
>
SO: Does this mean it is now?
> And some of us remember.
>
SO:
Perhaps this is one of the reason we are where we are at the moment.
Someone once joked that it was a good thing that Fadi did not have enough
time to transition from his predecessor. I guess the other side of that is
happening here where too much history seem to be affecting the judgement of
the present/future.
Everytime I hear people(including myself) complain about ICANN board, it's
said that they acted in the interest of the cooperation. None has however
said they acted in their personal individual interest which IMO is still a
predictable stand. Do I want the board to be unaccountable, absolutely not
(and I don't think the board is asking for that as well) neither do I want
to community to be unaccountable. This WG have taken time to attempt
"fixing" board loop holes, it is just rational for the board to help in
suggesting fixes for ours as well.
There is a saying that spectators in a football match seem to know about a
match more than the players, but wait until such spectator wears the Jessy
Regards
>
>
>
> On 08/09/15 17:53, Roelof Meijer wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Below I pasted some quotes from this thread. And I cannot but wonder.
>> What are we getting so wound up about? Did we really expected a “yes,
>> perfect, let’s implement this straight away”?
>> But what makes me wonder most is why, for heaven’s sake, do we see the
>> board as a unity of ill-doers?
>>
>> The board members that have participated in our work are individuals
>> that I hold in high esteem. Quite a few of them tutored me when I
>> entered this miraculous world of ICANN quite a few years ago.
>> They gave me different angles and insights, pointed out different
>> possible views and were open to discussion, disagreement and new ideas.
>> And were tirelessly working to improve the way we work for the benefit
>> of the global internet community. And most of them did not change a bit
>> after they decided to help us all forward even more, make a personal
>> sacrifice and join ICANN's board.
>>
>> In my opinion, there’s no collective single opinion in any wrong
>> direction in this board. There is however, a collective intellect and a
>> level of individual integrity and selfishness that one does not easily
>> find in executive structures. They deserve our respect. Which, no, does
>> not mean that we cannot have different opinions.
>>
>> When Steve Crocker writes:
>>
>> /"We support the important improvements for ICANN's accountability
>>
>> contained in the CCWG-Accountability's 2nd Draft Proposal. We endorse
>> the goal of enforceability of these accountability mechanisms, and we
>> believe that it is possible to implement the key elements of the
>> proposal. We want to work together to achieve the elements of the
>> proposal within the community's timeline while meeting the NTIA
>> requirements.”/
>>
>>
>> he in my opinion sends a very clear message that we should happily
>> receive, as he commits the board. Let’s await the promised details of
>> their ideas and keep engaged.
>> Why should we want to send messages like the following, what do we hope
>> to achieve? Frustrate the process to a halt?
>> Read the quotes below, and note the interpretations of what was read or
>> heard: as in “while you say, …. I see…”, “when you say, … you mean.."
>>
>> /"While you say the the Single member is just a implementation issue, I
>> //see you attacking one of the fundamental principles, in fact the
>> //keystone of the CCWG proposal."/
>>
>> //
>>
>> /"I see in the Board's response a fear of the community and of the all
>> the //bad things we might do if we were not kept tightly in check"/
>>
>> //
>>
>> /"It should not come as a surprise that ICANN's current structure does
>>
>> not want changes. Nothing is more natural in a change process than for
>> those who see some loss of control or authority to oppose it. It is a
>> very natural human reaction."/
>>
>> //
>>
>> /"for too long ICANN the corporation has operated according to the
>>
>> priorities of the legal dept, and especially Jones Day, with the
>> board-staff simply taking direction from its lawyers (in-house and
>> out-house), putting the corporation first and the community last" /
>>
>> //
>>
>> /"When you say you agree to a thing in principle you mean that you have
>> not the slightest intention of carrying it out in practice."/
>>
>> //
>>
>> /"And I, for one, do not want the transition //badly enough that I would
>> capitulate to the Board's effort to completely //distort the proposed
>> process."/
>>
>> //
>>
>> /"I understand why the Board does not want to yield power. That is
>> precisely //why it must."/
>>
>> //
>>
>> /"The effort to spin the replacement recommendation as just
>> //operationalization is impressive."/
>>
>> //
>>
>> /"not surrender and let the Board have complete control //without any
>> possibility of ever being subject to oversight ever again"/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Let’s all sit back a bit and reflect. On ourselves…
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Roelof Meijer
>>
>> SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE
>> NETHERLANDS
>> T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05
>> roelof.meijer at sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer at sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl
>> <http://www.sidn.nl/>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07-09-15 20:14, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>> Avri Doria" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>>
>> avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> First, my perceptions are not colored by Trust. I trust the Board
and I
>> trust that you are all well intentioned people who are doing the best
>> you can for ICANN. I believe that none of you has an ulterior
motive of
>> personal advantage for the positions you take. I go so far in my
trust
>> of the Board members as being among those who do not believe that a
>> Board member would ever take a position just because it would help
him
>> get elected and in the future would never believe that a Board member
>> would change her position due to a concern with being removed from
the
>> Board. I am sure that each and every Board member would resign from
the
>> Board if they believed their effect were deleterious on ICANN and the
>> Internet.
>>
>> My issue has to with with different perspectives. Perspective from
the
>> Board that holds all the power, and from the community that wishes to
>> become empowered, at leas to a degree.
>>
>> While you say the the Single member is just a implementation issue, I
>> see you attacking one of the fundamental principles, in fact the
>> keystone of the CCWG proposal.
>>
>> I see in the Board's response a fear of the community and of the all
the
>> bad things we might do if we were not kept tightly in check. I think
>> this is problematic and may be a barrier to finding a solution to the
>> current impasse.
>>
>> Some inset comments below.
>>
>> On 07-Sep-15 04:22, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>
>> Hi Avri,
>>
>> it is not easy for me to disagree with you. In most of the areas
>> where we work together we have consensus or rough
>> consensus. But here we have one of this seldom cases of
>> disagreement. I recognize your statement but I am asking myself
>> whether it is grounded on facts or on mistrust?
>>
>> What are the facts? For nearly all CCWG building blocks we have
>> an agreement:
>> •Community empowerment (Agreeement)
>>
>>
>> I do not see the Board as agreeing with the basic proposal. Maybe
it is
>> a matter of degree. The Board wishes to empower the community to a
lower
>> extent than the community considers empowerment. As explained by
other,
>> you want to give the community more appeal mechanisms, whereas on
some
>> fundamental issues the community requires decision making
empowerment.
>> The concepts are so far apart, it cannot be called 'agreement' in any
>> straightforward definition of the term..
>>
>> •Removal of the Board (Agreement with some minor specifications)
>>
>>
>> Sort of ok. I think there is a bit of very unflattering conjecture on
>> the Board's part of a capricious and vengeful community. Why do you
>> fear us so?
>>
>> •Fundamental Bylaws (Agreement)
>>
>>
>> Not really, the CCWG proposal required that the Community have a
direct
>> say on changes to fundamental bylaws and articles of incorporation.
>> Raising the Board's threshold and consultations do not match the
>> requirements at all. The are qualitatively different proposals.
>>
>>
>> •Operational Plan (Agreement)
>> •Budget (Agreement with some minor clarifictions)
>>
>>
>> How minor are those clarifications? My impression in the meeting was
>> that they, like many of the other 'minor' issues where actually
based on
>> fundamental disagreements.
>>
>> •Enforceability (Agreement)
>>
>>
>> I think you make a mistake about this. The Board seems to assume
that
>> we want to run off to court every time we are thwarted. Nothing
could
>> be further from the truth. The CCWG plan was designed to make
going to
>> court the end of a very long chain of other options that should not
be
>> necessary. The Board seems to offer a fast path to court. The CCWG
plan
>> balances the empowerment of the community with the empowerment of the
>> Board nd strengthened redress mechanisms. It creates a new
participant
>> in the checks and balances.
>>
>> •IRP (Agreement)
>>
>>
>> Without allowing for binding decisions, it can't be called agreement.
>>
>> •Ombudsman (Agreement)
>>
>> We have a disagreement with regard to the Sole Membership Model.
>>
>>
>> Which is the keystone of the proposal and the reason that the other
>> parts of the solution would work.
>>
>> For me the remaining open issues can be solved by further
>> intensification of the dialogue within the community including
>> CCWG and Board members. We have enough legal advice from
>> different perspectives. If needed, we could get a third legal
>> advice. But at the end it is the community which has to make the
>> decision.
>>
>>
>> The community makes the decision? I thought the situation here was
that
>> ultimately the Board would make the decision. Had the community been
>> making the decision, this process would have been like the CWG
process.
>> Once we would have finished the last comment period we would have
>> submitted out proposal and then we could have moded on to the
>> implementation phase.
>>
>>
>> This is the last mile. It is very natural that in such a
>> complicated transition in the final stage there are some
>> remaining controversies. In my eyes, there are not 20 miles to
>> go (as Becky has proposed). The main work is done. And it is
>> good work, also thanks to the CCWG, to its co-chairs, to its
>> members and to the input from the broader community. The whole
>> process is a very encouraging example which shows how the
>> multistakeholder approach works in practice. This is an
>> important signal also towards the WSIS 10+ Review process in New
>> York.
>>
>>
>> If the Board were closer to agreeing with the CCWG proposal, I would
be
>> able to agree. But given the explanations we have had of the MEM and
>> the Board's other possible solutions, I just do not see this. To me,
>> this looks like the morning of a multiday bike bike tour when a
century*
>> or two are left to the finish. But maybe it is more like a climb of
>> Everest at the last stage - stage 4, but i have never tried that.
>>
>> (*century as in 100 km or miles - lets go with km, that is a little
>> better)
>>
>>
>> The reason why I have problems with the sole membership model is
>> simple: I am in favor of a new mechanism to strengthen the
>> checks and balances in the ICANN system to keep the board (and
>> the other ICANN bodies) accountable to the community. But in my
>> eyes the proposed Sole Membership Model is untested, has a
>> number of risks and is open for unintended side-effects.
>>
>>
>> Whereas I see this as a fundamental check and balance element that
>> compensates for the removal of ICANN's only external oversight. An
>> organization that removes formal external oversight needs a stronger
>> notion of community oversight mechanisms. The AOC reviews are a good
>> start, but we have seen that not only do the recommendations
sometimes
>> get perverted in implementation (for example bylaws changes that made
>> the IRP less useful rather than more so, as had been recommended by
>> ATRT1) or rather lackadaisically as we have seen with ATRT2
>> recommendations that are green lighted for someday over the
rainbow. As
>> people pointed out to me frequently when I spoke of ATRT2
>> recommendations, I mostly had to add: "but we are still waiting."
>>
>> You speak of untested models. The only model that has been tested is
the
>> current model without any changes. And we have seen that this is a
>> model that does nothing to curb the creative and spending exuberance
of
>> the Board. It is a model that will not work without ultimate
oversight
>> somewhere. This we can see strong evidence for. As we become free
from
>> government's ultimate control, we have to make sure that the
community,
>> one that is ever outreaching, has adequate oversight. We need the
SMCM
>> in order to replace NTIA's ultimate responsibility. This cannot be a
>> transition of the absence of oversight, but rather must be a
transition
>> to community oversight. It is this that I don't think the Board has
>> accepted, and that is the crux of the matter. I think it is something
>> that the CWG proposal requires.
>>
>> I am not convinced that the proposed voting mechanism is save
>> enough against capture. I did not get a satisfying rationale why
>> Advisory Committees are treated so differently in the proposed
>> mechanism. I have my doubts how governments can be included in
>> an appropriate way into this new mechanism without touching the
>> well designed balance between governments and the
>> non-governmental stakeholders in the ICANN ecosystem. And there
>> are other detailed questions.
>>
>>
>> In one respect, I agree with you. I want all ACSO to have equal
>> footing in the SMCM, but am in the minority on that one as I want its
>> structure to resemble essence of the matrix balance that exists in
the
>> ICANN system architecture. Nonetheless, I do not see major
opportunity
>> for capture in the reference model as the initiation mechanisms for
>> action and the vote thresholds are so high they do not facilitate
>> capture. And the simpler we are allowed to implement, the less chance
>> there will be for capture and other shenanigans.
>>
>>
>> The Sole Membership Model, as it is proposed now, is still too
>> vague, too unbalanced, too confusing.
>>
>>
>> I disagree. It is fairly direct and limited. It has defined scope
and
>> functions. The only fuzzy part is the voting thresholds and the
>> modalities by which it worst internally, but that is an
implementation
>> detail.
>>
>> It is not yet ready for adoption.
>>
>>
>> We disagree on this.
>>
>> It needs a lot of more work.
>>
>>
>> We agree on this, but those are implementation details. That fact
of an
>> SMCM is not a mere operationalization detail as the Board seems to
>> claim, but its implementation modalities may be.
>>
>> There are too many weak points. Go back to the table which was
>> presented by Sidley in Paris where they showed us the plus and
>> minus of the three models. It is true that the Sole Membership
>> Model was the best of the three with more plus and less minus
>> than the other two. But in total, all the three models were far
>> away to meet the NTIA criteria, to be save enough against
>> capture and to enhance ICANNs operational stability and
>> security. More innovation, more creativity and more careful
>> analysis are needed. I raised my doubts in BA. I repeated this
>> in Paris. And I raised my voice in the various telcos.
>>
>>
>> I think you will find if you investigate it that many of the
weaknesses
>> of the model have been dealt with. perhaps Sidley and Adler will
help
>> us with that.
>>
>>
>> My first proposal was to dislink the discussion of the sole
>> membership model from WS 1 and to have more time to go into the
>> details of such a needed new mechanism in WS 2. This is
>> obviously impossible. We have to propose something here and now
>> within WS 1. I know that some CCWG members have mistrust into a
>> long-term process and speculate that if they do not get it now
>> they will get it never. I think this is wrong. The process is
>> unstoppable.
>>
>>
>> Again you miss the point about the SMCM being the the keystone in
this
>> system construction. Removing it requires going back to the
beginning
>> as it holds everything together.
>>
>> As soon as WS1 in complete, the process will be stoppable unless the
>> community model has been implemented. As long as the Board remains
>> unchecked, and only accessible by appeal, a system that has failed at
>> ICANN since its beginnings, there will be no way fro redress Board
>> actiions. If there is one thing ICANN has nearly always failed in
it is
>> redress mechanisms. After all these years of failure in redress
>> mechanism why should anyone be convinced on ICANN's future redress
>> mechanisms. Here we have proof of what doesn't work. New RR, IRP,
>> ombudsman roles roles &c, are the experimental part of this
proposal. I
>> have faith that with a SMCM we can insure that there are genuine
>> improvements to the redress mechanisms, but in today's Board
>> configuration, it is impossible to believe in redress at ICANN.
>>
>>
>> My impression is that the majority in the community sees this
>> indeed as an ongoing process of ICANNs improvement which will
>> not stop with the IANA transition. In BA I argued that after the
>> IANA transition (WS 1) and an enhanced accountability (WS 2) we
>> will need to discuss a restructuring of ICANN to adjust its
>> various SOs and ACs and CCWGs to the new challenges of a
>> changing environment. I did call this “WS 3” and “ICANN 2020”.
>> And I also argued that small steps are better than big jumps.
>>
>>
>> Yes any organization that does not continually improve is doomed.
but
>> we should get to a point of sufficient accountability in good time,
and
>> leave the future to necessary tweaking.
>>
>> I find the invention of WS3 to be the first step in the process of
>> taking decisions out of WS2 and see it as the tip of the spear for
>> thwarting future change. Anything hard, lets push it to WS2, and
then to
>> WS3...
>>
>>
>> More or less we are witnessing now what Bill Clinton told us in
>> San Francisco that getting Internet Governance right is like
>> stumbling forward. As longs as it goes forward, it is ok. And
>> what we are doing now is to prepare the next (small) stumbling
>> step forward. With other words, we have to be patient and to do
>> now what can be done now and what is needed under WS 1 to allow
>> the termination of the IANA contract. But this will not be the
>> end of the story. It will go on.
>>
>>
>> I am not quite the Bill Clinton fan you are. And find that too much
>> stumbling, as we often see among the Clintons, is not really the best
>> example. Yes, if we are about to fall, stumbling forward is
preferable,
>> but I would prefer to see us get our multistakeholder model beyond
the
>> stumbling phase.
>>
>> As for being patient, sorry, been too long coming. We have been
>> patient. My experience is of at least of decade of 'soon come.'
For
>> others it is much longer.
>>
>> But if patient I must be, I am ready to be patient now and wait for
>> transition until we are ready.
>>
>>
>> And here is a final observation. To put it – like Greg – as a
>> conflict as “Board on Top” vs. “Community on Top” is misleading.
>> Both the members of the Board and the members of the CCWG are
>> selected by the community. Both are accountable to the
>> community. As I said in the chat during the recent telco we all
>> are sitting in one boat (or in one car) and want to have a
>> better, stable, secure, efficient and accountable ICANN with
>> more (and stress-tested) checks and balances in the system.
>>
>>
>> The politics of Tops and Bottoms is always tough unless there is real
>> mutual trust of each party by the other. You claim that the community
>> does not trust the Board, that may be the case among some parts of
the
>> community. I claim that a far greater lack of trust is displayed by
the
>> Board for the community. I think many of your comments are colored
by a
>> pervasive distrust of the community and its purported drive to
capture
>> and game.
>>
>> Once a community member becomes a Board member she adopts a new
>> perspective and set of responsibilities. This is what makes the
Board
>> another part of the community while not representing the community.
For
>> a the Board to become a genuine member of the community, it needs to
>> give up its role as benevolent despot and accept the need for the
>> community to balance its power. ICANN needs a community that can
check
>> and balance the Board's unilateral power.
>>
>> The CCWG model defines a degree of power sharing between the two as
the
>> best solution for replacing NTIA oversight.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> im
>>
>> Auftrag von Avri Doria
>> Gesendet: Sa 05.09.2015 08:17
>> An: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>
>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog: Working Together Through The Last
>> Mile
>> Hi,
>>
>> The effort to spin the replacement recommendation as just
>> operationalization is impressive.
>>
>> I do not understand the references to capture unless they mean
>> capture
>> by the community from the Board. I suppose that from their
>> perspective
>> the CMSM would appear to be capture in and of itself, as it
>> gives the
>> community a share of the power they now hold for themselves. I
>> think
>> any discussion of capture that goes beyond FUD, needs an
>> analysis who
>> who has captured the current ICANN model. Capture is always an
>> interesting topic because it often means: "who is trying to
share my
>> power now?" I am all for opening up the discussion to the power
>> anlaysi, current, potential and likely.
>>
>> Additionally, I do not understand this statement:
>>
>> where the current proposal still warrants much detail that
>> may not be
>> achievable
>>
>> While it is true that is needs a bit more detail, though perhaps
>> much
>> less that is being claimed - until it is time for implementaton,
>> it is
>> not as bad as all of that. What do they mean that an adequate
>> level of
>> detail is not achievable? Though I have learned that if someone
>> does not
>> wish to accept a proposal, it can never have enough detail.
>>
>> I think we are facing a critical moment in this transition where
>> we, as
>> a community, will have to decide whether we want the transition
>> so badly
>> that we are willing to surrender and let the Board have complete
>>
>> control
>> without any possibility of ever being subject to oversight ever
>> again.
>> The transition is the time to switch from NTIA oversight to
>> community
>> oversight. If this is not possible, then perhaps the transition
>> should
>> not go forward.
>>
>> We need to consider this turn of affairs quite carefully.
>>
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 04-Sep-15 15:53, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
>>
>> Original
>> link:
>>
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile
>>
>>
>> Working Together Through The Last Mile
>>
>> <
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#><
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#><
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#><
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#><
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#><
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#
>> <
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#%3E%3Chttps://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#%3E%3Chttps://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#%3E%3Chttps://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#%3E%3Chttps://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#%3E%3Chttps://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile#
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd like to thank everyone who has participated in both the
CCWG
>> briefing to the ICANN Board
>> <
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56132981>,
>> and the CCWG and ICANN board dialogue
>> <
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56133316>.
>> All of our dialogues over the past months have been
>> illuminating,
>> challenging and in my opinion, an important and true
>> testament to the
>> multistakeholder model as we work toward the IANA
>> Stewardship Transition.
>>
>> */We support the important improvements for ICANN's
>>
>> accountability
>> contained in the CCWG-Accountability's 2nd Draft Proposal.
>> We endorse
>> the goal of enforceability of these accountability
>> mechanisms, and we
>> believe that it is possible to implement the key elements of
the
>> proposal. We want to work together to achieve the elements
>> of the
>> proposal within the community's timeline while meeting
>> the NTIA requirements./*
>>
>> As we enter the final days of the Public Comment period, the
>> Board
>> wants to be completely clear on our position. We are in
>> agreement on
>> key concepts set forward in the CCWG's proposal, for example:
>>
>> * Fundamental bylaws.
>> * Specific requirements for empowering the community
>> into the bylaws
>> adoption process.
>> * IRP enhancements.
>> * Board and director removal.
>> * ICANN's mission and core values.
>> * Strengthening requirements for empowering the
>> community in the
>> budget, operational and strategic planning process.
>> * The incorporation of the Affirmation of Commitments
>> Reviews
>> intoICANN bylaws.
>> * Community ability to enforce the accountability
>> mechanisms in the
>> bylaws.
>>
>> We have suggestions on how these could be operationalized.
With
>> regards to the mechanisms for community enforceability,
>> where the
>> current proposal still warrants much detail that may not be
>> achievable
>> we have a suggestion on how to deliver on it in a stable
way, as
>> increased enforceability must not open up questions of, for
>> example,
>> capture or diminishing of checks and balances.
>>
>> Let's work together on operationalizing the above principles
>> on which
>> we agree. Once again, we are committed to providing more
>> detail on how
>> these ideas can be operationalized in a way that they can be
>> implemented within the community identified time frame for
the
>> transition, as well as have sufficient tested grounds to not
>> result in
>> unintended consequences.
>>
>> During last night's discussion we shared this feedback. It
>> was a lot
>> of information to digest in a call (notes around opening
remarks
>> <
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-September/005160.html
>,
>> notes
>> around 10 points
>> <
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-September/005161.html
>
>> <
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-September/005161.html%3E
>),
>>
>> and we appreciate everyone giving our advice consideration.
>> We are
>> committed to submitting our comments into the Public Comment
>> process
>> in the next few days, and we look forward to the working
>> with the
>> community on further details.
>>
>> It is critical that we work together to build enhanced
>> accountability
>> forICANN and continue to refine and flesh out details of the
>> impressive work already done by the community and complete
>> the IANAStewardship Transition.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>> ---
>> 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
>> <mailto: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
>> <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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150908/d3713eb8/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list