[CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs

Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Sat Feb 20 18:16:27 UTC 2016


Fully agree

regards

Jorge

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 20.02.2016 um 18:58 schrieb Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>:

Objective, independent analysis are always an excellent approach

And, if it could be available by Marrakech, it could also help to inform ALL of the community.

Members and Participants are probably well deluged by the emails, but the larger community, who really needs to understand, would benefit from such an approach.

M

________________________________
From: Megan.Richards at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Megan.Richards at ec.europa.eu>
To: leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 17:44:04 +0000
CC: acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs

I wonder if an objective, independent analysis from the external legal counsel (or based on their already extensive assessments) would help to focus the real impact/change from status quo of the contentious part of the proposal? This could permit all members, participants and, in particular those who have not had the "advantage" of following the discussions in detail to analyse the relative impact from their perspectives.

Megan

Sent from my iPad

On 20 Feb 2016, at 01:22, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>> wrote:


Dear all,



As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group.

There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).

We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/011056.html.

While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process.

It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board disagreement later in the process.

We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group.

Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule.

As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly.

 Thank you,


Thomas, León, Mathieu

CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs


_______________________________________________
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


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list