[CCWG-ACCT] Work plan to Dublin

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Sep 29 15:15:05 UTC 2015


Dear Mathieu
Please note that we gave already been criticised as being closed pls ask Olivier le Blond when at WSIS when CCWG was criticised as not sufficiently opened to every body and I   Defend your group as was fully opened.
You established working  parties with overlapping each others in their virtual call and even with the working party meeting with very limited participants . When at the group level we wanted to reopen the issue one of the  co chair interrupted us aggressively and .unfriendly.
Now you want to discuss issues within a closed group   With very limited representation if the public.
The chairs of the SOs and ACs  were not elected with such a mandate nor the chairs od the WOs gave such a delegation of authorities.I reiterate and emphasise that we MUST be fully open to the entire public Members. Participants and observers.
If you want  to have a smooth meeting pls forget about closed meeting with any body that dies not gave a mandate to represent the public
Regards
Kavouss  
          

Sent from my iPhone

> On 29 Sep 2015, at 14:50, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:
> 
> Dear Kavouss,
> 
> At this point, the slides are a discussion starter and we look forward to the group's feedback. 
> 
> Your message is heard loud and clear, especially on the required openness and transparency. 
> 
> I would point out that the "coordination" mentioned in the slides is not related in any way to any decision making, but rather on updating about our progress. 
> 
> Best,
> Mathieu
> 
> Le 29/09/2015 12:02, Kavouss Arasteh a écrit :
>> Dear Mathieu
>> Pls carefully read my earlier message ,
>> I hope you are not acting like your co-chair not listening to the participants
>> I AM STRONGLY AGAINST CREATING A SMALL  CLOSED GROUP to discuss any issue what so ever.
>> The CCWG Chater is quite clear. The community has given a rtasks to us to discuss openly freely and transparently.
>> THE CHARTER THEREFORE DOES NOT SPEAK OF ANY CLOSED GROUP.
>> If the CCWG and not Co-chair reach at a consensus that another group shouléd be  formed to discuss the issue Under consideration with a view to find a way forward ,taking into account all inputs ( ccwg second Prooposal , Public Comments, Board,s proposal and the report of LA meeting) that groupm MUST BE OPEN TO EVERY BODY AND WE SHOULD AGREE ON ITS CHAIR OR CO-CHAIR.
>> tHE ICANN process MUST BE OPEN, INCLUSSIVE, TRANSPARENT AND DEMOCRATIC.
>> Pls kindly be careful and advoid creating a hiden/ closed cgroup
>> Regards
>> Kavouss
>> 
>> 2015-09-29 11:50 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>:
>>> Dear Robin,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your quick feedback. I try to clarify below.
>>> 
>>> Le 29/09/2015 00:10, Robin Gross a écrit :
>>>> Thanks, Mathieu, for this helpful proposal.  I've got a couple questions for clarifications about some statements on the slides.
>>>> 
>>>> 1.  On slide 7, the last one, on point 2 it says "Ensure that Board briefings on CCWG are (also) provided by CCWG co-chairs".  Does this mean those briefings will be provided to CCWG members via the co-chairs?  Or was the "by" meant to be a "to" in that statement (or something else)?  It wasn't quite clear to me.
>>> This sentence is probably confusing. It might be expressed more clearly in the correspondence to Steve Crocker :
>>>> 3.    At the same time, we reiterate our proposal to provide, as co-chairs, regular Board briefings during the Board meetings dedicated to Accountability, alongside the briefings provided by the President and staff. We would also welcome the opportunity to review the briefing materials received by Board members, and would understand if that was subject to a non disclosure agreement.
>>> So it was related to the briefings *of* the Board *by* CCWG.
>>> 
>>> I hope this clarifies ?
>>>> 
>>>> 2.  Also on slide 7, point 4 on the substantive work of the sub-teams (sub-part 2) "coordination by new small group (SO/AC reps, Board, Lawyers) to limit friction, no decision-making".  Presumably this means the SO/AC reps appointed to CCWG.  But which "board" members and which "lawyers" are proposed to coordinate the sub-teams in                 this new small group?
>>> That is a good topic for discussion. At this point, this had been drawn from Ira Magaziner's suggestion to coordinate more closely within the leadership of the various groups.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Mathieu
>>>> Thanks much!
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> Robin
>>>> 
>>>> On Sep 28, 2015, at 9:47 AM, Mathieu Weill wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>>> 
>>>>> In anticipation of a discussion during our meeting tomorrow, please find attached a set of slides to suggest a way forward, for the group's consideration.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you for your feedbacks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Thomas, Leon & Mathieu
>>>>> <To Dublin and beyond.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> *****************************
>>> Mathieu WEILL
>>> AFNIC - directeur général
>>> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
>>> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>>> Twitter : @mathieuweill
>>> *****************************
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
> -- 
> *****************************
> Mathieu WEILL
> AFNIC - directeur général
> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
> *****************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150929/06407ca5/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list