[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding the Board's Comments and It's Obligations

[Steve DelBianco]

Fully agree with your description of ‘participation’, Greg.

As I said on yesterday’s CCWG call, now is the time for the full board and its lawyers to engage in some ‘participatory’ engagement, by being specific about perceived risks and problems with CCWG’s proposal.   That will allow CCWG to react to those specifics, either thru explanation or adjustments to the proposal.


From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan
Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 11:54 PM
To: Chris Disspain
Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>"
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Regarding the Board's Comments and It's Obligations

Chris,

First, I would like to say that you and Bruce Tonkin have been models of participation.  Other board members have participated from time to time, but you have been through the process with us on a fairly regular basis -- both in calls and on the email list.

As far as the call with the Board as a whole, I think "participation" would have looked far more collaborative and a lot less like we were being overruled.  It would have looked more honest where there were points of disagreement.  It would have looked like a Board looking for ways to make our proposal work, rather than excising significant elements.  It would have looked like a Board being more specific and explicit about points of concern so that these could be solved, instead of relying on vague characterizations that could not even be identified with enough specificity to work through them.  It would have looked like a give-and-take process, not the delivery of a counter-proposal.  It would have felt more engaged and less scripted and spun.  It would have felt like the Board was seeking understanding, rather than seeking to replace what it did not understand (or understood, but did not like).

Greg

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>> wrote:
Hi Greg,

We can choose to treat the Board's intervention as "participation," but it did not have the feeling of participation to me.

So what would participation look like to you?



Cheers,


Chris

On 9 Sep 2015, at 05:52 , Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:

Did anyone get the license plate number of the bus that "participated" with me?

We can choose to treat the Board's intervention as "participation," but it did not have the feeling of participation to me.  It had the feeling of the Board attempting to exercise its position of power.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi,

Even though I would have preferred seeing board's comment earlier than now. I believe what is written below is still order. I quote a section below that may need to be in bold as well.

"....if we have views on that proposal, we should participate with the community."

We are still in proposal development process and board is participating in the process.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 8 Sep 2015 19:58, "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
All

In preparation for our call today, I wanted to share with you the following that I pulled from the hearing that the Senate Commerce Committee held earlier this year:
***

The Chairman:  Will the ICANN Board send a proposal to NTIA that lessens the Board’s power or authority?
Mr. Chehade:  We will if the community and the stakeholders present us with a proposal.  We will give it to NTIA, and we committed already that we will not change the proposal, that if we have views on that proposal, we should participate with the community. Once that proposal comes from our stakeholders, we will pass it on to NTIA as is.
***
I would read this as a commitment from ICANN and the Board.
Paul


Paul Rosenzweig
Red Branch Consulting, PLLC
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq 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
www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
www.paulrosenzweigesq.com<http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/>
Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>



_______________________________________________
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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150909/4e457d08/attachment.html>