<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Co chairs</div><div>Dear All,</div><div>I was not able to attend that meeting as I had another mission to accomplish. However, I was present at the first part of GAC in which I described a little bit about ICVG, CCWG.</div><div>After presentation by Jonathan and his co chair, Larry raised an important question about various options and alternatives in each option and asked " Did you study the implementation steps and time for each option "</div><div>This alert us ( CCWG) to also include in our studies for WP 1 and WP 2 the element of implementation steps and the corresponding time.</div><div>May I therefore request the Co- Chairs as well as the chairs of the WPs to kindly take this into account in our further development of the process.</div><div>During the discussion on the output of CWG, the interrelation between activities of CCWG and CWG, in particular the overlapping issue was also raised. </div><div>Kavouss </div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-02-08 11:08 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:el@lisse.na" target="_blank">el@lisse.na</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I am EXTREMELY concerned about the GAC, since apparently after<br>
several years of work in the Framework of Interpretation Working<br>
Group in which 5 liaisons of the GAC (Heather Dryden, Jayantha<br>
Fernando, Frank March, Alice Munyua, Suzanne Radell) participated,<br>
and during which we briefed the GAC at almost every ICANN Meeting<br>
about our progress, they are now basically saying they know nothing<br>
about it, and they are upset about that we did it, never mind the<br>
charter and their participation.<br>
<br>
This casts doubt on the reliability and predictability of any GAC<br>
involvement and I need to know why GAC members are present and<br>
liaising (on behalf of the GAC) when the GAC later reneges.<br>
<br>
This needs to be cleared and/or settled, prior to any further work<br>
being conducted in ANY Wg with GAC involvement, but in particular<br>
this one.<br>
<br>
Or in other words, if that is the case, indeed, we do not need GAC<br>
liaison (or "members") on the CCWG-Accountability.<br>
<br>
Of course they can participate as "participants" in their personal<br>
capacity like anyone else.<br>
<br>
<br>
And, I find it ABSOLUTELY unacceptable that such a meeting is not<br>
announced to the Mailing List and conducted by the co-chairs<br>
basically behind the back of the "members", liasions, "participants"<br>
and observers.<br>
<br>
Just to make sure, that means UNACCEPTABLE! Never mind<br>
accountability.<br>
<br>
greetings, el<br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
On 2015-02-08 15:26 , Mathieu Weill wrote:<br>
> Dear Colleagues,<br>
><br>
> This morning Thomas & I attended a session in the GAC to update on<br>
> our progress. Apologies to the members of the group who did not<br>
> spot this meeting, we had very short notice. Leon could for<br>
> instance not make it.<br>
><br>
> FYI, I paste below in telegram style the main feedbacks from the<br>
> short Q&A session that took place.<br>
><br>
>> Inputs from GAC room : -Argentina (Olga) : current focus of CCWG<br>
>> is focused on Icann itself. Requests more engagement outside,<br>
>> especially in Latin America. also raised the issue of equal<br>
>> footing in the future community system. This will be a sensitive<br>
>> issue for GAC<br>
>><br>
>> - Spain: When considering the option of member organisation, why<br>
>> not go beyond US law ? Feels that it limits participation to US<br>
>> experts. Also insists that accountability mechanisms must be<br>
>> effective, independent, affordable<br>
>><br>
>> - France : Very supportive of our proposals and suggested that<br>
>> the GAC supports the principles. Looking for a way to create<br>
>> some form of Board oversight<br>
>><br>
>> - Brazil : Acknowledged quality of CCWG work. Stresses<br>
>> importance of "independent" review & redress. Also noted that<br>
>> the way the Board will consider proposals will be very sensitive<br>
>> for them.<br>
>><br>
>> - Germany : Concern about interelation with CWG and timelines.<br>
>><br>
>> I did welcome the input and noted that GAC input was consistent<br>
>> with input from other parts of the community, which I found quite<br>
>> encouraging.<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> *****************************<br>
> Mathieu WEILL<br>
> AFNIC - directeur général<br>
> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06<br>
> <a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><br>
> Twitter : @mathieuweill<br>
> *****************************<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div>> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>