[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in

farzaneh badii farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Sun Sep 13 00:44:24 UTC 2015


No Chris. In my opinion, commitment to multistakeholder model is
demonstrated by action not election.


In response to Seun, unfortunately it is not that simple Seun. We have
discussed the exact arbitration mechanism that the board is presenting as a
"new" mechanism, in CCWG.The community did not ignore the possibility of
arbitration. One problem as Becky Burr said in CCWG-ACCT w/ ICANN Board -
ICANN 53 (21 June) , is that the governments might not be willing to accept
entering into a binding arbitration, and above all they might not be able
to enter into such binding arbitration agreement.

On 13 September 2015 at 01:16, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:

> Glibness is easy when brevity is the goal.  Thoughtful consideration
> requires extended analysis.
>
>
> Then, perhaps, instead of responding to Seun in the way you did, it might
> have been more considered to be less glib and more thoughtful.
>
> ...I am deeply serious. The board’s commitment to the multi-stakeholder
> model is not.
>
>
> You are entitled to your opinion but it is an opinion not a fact.
> Commitment to the multistakeholder model is demonstrated in many ways. In
> my case, my serious belief in and my commitment to the multistakeholder
> model is tested regularly by my peers, who elect me. Yours?
>
> The Board’s brief “we don’t like it and here is our three page counter
> proposal” does not deserve our respect.
>
>
> It is disappointing that you appear to prefer to use glib rhetoric rather
> than provide a considered view having thoughtfully read and analysed the
> documents.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Chris
>
> On 12 Sep 2015, at 23:30 , Paul Rosenzweig <
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> With respect Chris, I am deeply serious.  The board’s commitment to the
> multi-stakeholder model is not.
>
> And as for “size” when it reflects depth of analysis, yes … it usually
> does matter.  Glibness is easy when brevity is the goal.  Thoughtful
> consideration requires extended analysis.
>
> A CCWG process that has gone on for nearly a year and involved 100s of
> members of the community in meeting taking place across the globe and tens
> of thousands of man hours does, actually, produce a proposal that has the
> consensus of the Community.  The Board’s brief “we don’t like it and here
> is our three page counter proposal” does not deserve our respect.
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> Link to my PGP Key
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
>
>
> *From:* Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo at auda.org.au <ceo at auda.org.au>]
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 12, 2015 8:20 AM
> *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
>
> Ah…so, clearly, size does matter….to some…..
>
> With respect, you can’t be serious.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
>
> On 12 Sep 2015, at 21:50 , Paul Rosenzweig <
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Seun
>
> With respect, you can’t be serious.  The Board’s alternate proposal is a
> 3-page memo.  The CCWG’s proposal is an integrated 180 page documents
> which, even if you limit yourself to the parts directly related to the
> Single Member model (not including stress tests, or the fundamental bylaws
> themselves) is roughly 8-10x as long (depending on how you count it) ….
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> Link to my PGP Key
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
>
>
> *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Friday, September 11, 2015 9:40 PM
> *To:* Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
>
> Hi Jordan,
> I don't think there is so much details to develop than what we currently
> have with the sole member (which by the way also requires a lot of details).
> I think the main question we need to ask the CCWG legal is whether the
> leadership of the SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal standing under
> the California law. Every other aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and
> just the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is what lawyers needs to
> come in on.
> Perhaps it's also good to note that what is being proposed by board has
> been discussed one way or the other in the past but somehow we did not
> follow-up on the thoughts up.
> Regards
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> hi all
>
> You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which have
> now been lodged:
>
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.html
>
> I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo on the
> MEM.
>
> It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into
> account as we refine the proposal.
>
> An initial observation - there is a lot of detail that would need to be
> developed if the alternative proposal was to be complete enough to undergo
> stress testing, based on an initial scan.
>
> Happy reading!
>
> Cheers
> Jordan
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
> Chief Executive, InternetNZ
> +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>


-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150913/083e2911/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list