<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td valign="top"><div>I'm not talking about how people react, i'm asking if the new idea phase is over already. By "working group" I thought people would be actively working out the details, proposing ideas, not just me, and not endlessly reclarifying "what the board thinks, said, knows, wonders, will do", all speculation, so far the only thing i've seen major consenseus on is the chronolgy calendar blog post. The timeline of events has been agreed upon in weeks of emails.<br /><br />Ron</div></td></tr></table> <div id="_origMsg_">
<div>
<br />
<div>
<div style="font-size:0.9em">
<hr size="1">
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span>
</b>
Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span>
</b>
'Ron Baione' <ron.baione@yahoo.com>; 'Nigel Roberts' <nigel@channelisles.net>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span>
</b>
RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span>
</b>
Tue, Oct 13, 2015 4:57:55 PM <br>
</div>
<br>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">When you join a process 10 months into it, you should not expect people to react well to your request that they revisit issues settled some time ago.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Paul Rosenzweig</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank" href="javascript:return"><span style="color:#0563C1;">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">O: +1 (202) 547-0660</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">M: +1 (202) 329-9650</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">VOIP: +1 (202)
738-1739</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9"><span style="color:#0563C1;">Link to my PGP Key</span></a></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></p><div class="yqt6093160829" id="yqt16571"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> Ron Baione [mailto:ron.baione@yahoo.com] <br clear="none"><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 13, 2015 12:26 PM<br clear="none"><b>To:</b> Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br
clear="none"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in;"><div><p class="MsoNormal">This is a general question to the group, in your view, what percentage of responses to this email list contain new ideas for real progress and what percentage of responses are clarifications and confusion on what ICANN's situation currently is? Is it that we are so far along in the process that the only thing to do is wait on the ideas already proposed? I expected people on the list to be saying, "lets try it this way" or "what about this idea", I haven't seen that said once. <br clear="none"><br clear="none">Ron</p></div></td></tr></table></div><div id="_origMsg_"><div><div class="yqt6093160829" id="yqt18577"><p
class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> </span></p></div><div><div class="yqt6093160829" id="yqt14605"><div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"></span><hr align="center" size="1" width="100%"></div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Nigel Roberts <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">nigel@channelisles.net</a>>; <br clear="none"><b>To: </b>Paul Rosenzweig <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>; <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>; <br
clear="none"><b>Subject: </b>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin <br clear="none"><b>Sent: </b>Tue, Oct 13, 2015 7:32:05 AM </span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> </span></p><table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" valign="top" style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;">It's not for me to interpret the Joint Statement as I was no part of its <br clear="none">drafting.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">The statement was prepared jointly by the HLIG and CENTR and it was <br clear="none">offered to the joint meeting as a draft. It was then adopted without <br clear="none">even minor typographical or stylistic changes.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Statements published public authorities, or together involving public <br clear="none">authorities are necessarily guarded, in
general.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">So I would hesitate to give you an answer to your question with 100.1% <br clear="none">certainty.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">However, personally speaking, I did indeed find the proposed statement <br clear="none">"powerful" (as you put it), and my comments upon seeing it for the first <br clear="none">time, expressed in the meeting at the time, were that it needed no changes.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">I trust this helps?<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">Nigel<br clear="none"><br clear="none">PS: Personally I am mildly less than enamoured of the CCWG-A proposal <br clear="none">myself (the "single member idea"), but I remain terribly disturbed that <br clear="none">the Board appears to think -- to paraphrase myself -- that it is <br clear="none">entitled to yap subsequent to canine purchase.</p><div id="yqtfd99028"><p
class="MsoNormal"><br clear="none">On 13/10/15 02:18, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:<br clear="none">> Nigel<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> Help us who weren't there read between the lines -- is this the HLIG saying that the CCWG-A proposal is more to be respected than th<br clear="none">e Boards MEM revision. That is how I read it, which would be powerful, <br clear="none">but I don't want to overstate it if that is an inaccurate interpretation<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> Paul<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> Paul Rosenzweig<br clear="none">> <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br clear="none">> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<br clear="none">> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<br clear="none">> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<br clear="none">> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br clear="none">> Link to my PGP Key<br clear="none">><br clear="none">><br clear="none">> -----Original
Message-----<br clear="none">> From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect">nigel@channelisles.net</a>]<br clear="none">> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 4:21 AM<br clear="none">> To: <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br clear="none">> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> Enforceability was a key theme I heard at the European's Commission's HLIG at the CENTR meeting in Brussels.<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> They also said:<br clear="none">>> We wish to reiterate our support to the Cross-Community Working Group on the IANA Stewardship Transition (CWG) and to the work of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG).<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> and that<br clear="none">><br clear="none">>> The outcome will only have the necessary legitimacy if the
bottom-up, consensus-driven process continues to be fully respected.<br clear="none">><br clear="none">><br clear="none">> <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://www.domainpulp.com/icann/centr-and-commission-meet-and-discuss-icann-accountability/">http://www.domainpulp.com/icann/centr-and-commission-meet-and-discuss-icann-accountability/</a><br clear="none">><br clear="none">><br clear="none">><br clear="none">> On 11/10/15 08:56, Matthew Shears wrote:<br clear="none">>> Thanks for circulating this Grace.<br clear="none">>><br clear="none">>> I would certainly support - _and believe it should be a priority for<br clear="none">>> Dublin_ - having a very clear understanding (in chart form or other)<br clear="none">>> of the enforcement mechanisms for each of the powers under the SMM,<br clear="none">>> Designator and MEM models as noted in the second bullet in the Action<br
clear="none">>> for lawyers section below. Hopefully much of this has analysis been<br clear="none">>> done and won't take to much additional work.<br clear="none">>><br clear="none">>> Thanks.<br clear="none">>><br clear="none">>> Matthew<br clear="none">>><br clear="none">>> On 08/10/2015 18:14, Grace Abuhamad wrote:<br clear="none">>>> Dear all,<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Briefing with Counsel<br clear="none">>>> for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> will be available here: <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://community.icann.org/x/BahYAw">https://community.icann.org/x/BahYAw</a><br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> A copy of the notes may be found below.<br
clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> AC room recording:<br clear="none">>>> <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p46pejy7tf3/">https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p46pejy7tf3/</a>><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://icann.adobeconne">https://icann.adobeconne</a><br clear="none">>>> ct.com/p46pejy7tf3/<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> *Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8<br clear="none">>>> October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC*<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> *Attendees in AC room: *<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> CCWG: Steve DelBianco; Jonathan Zuck; Kavouss Arasteh<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> Counsel: Ingrid Mittermaier; Michael Clark; Rosemary Fei (and
Ed<br clear="none">>>> McNicholas and Holly Gregory on the phone line only)<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> *Notes:*<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> Today's discussion revolves around the text here:<br clear="none">>>> <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-Oc">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-Oc</a><br clear="none">>>> tober/006125.html><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-</a><br clear="none">>>> community/2015-October/006125.html<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> Kavouss added an edit
(underlined here):<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> 1. Power to block a proposed Operating Plan/Strat Plan/Budget with<br clear="none">>>> limitation on rejection/ Veto ( maximum 3 times )<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> 2. Power to approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws and Articles of<br clear="none">>>> Incorporation.<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> 3. Power to block changes to standard Blaws.<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> 4. Power to appoint and remove individual board Directors possibly<br clear="none">>>> with the approval of the entire community<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> 5. Power to recall the entire board of Directors<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> 6. Mechanism for binding IRP where a panel decision is enforceable in<br clear="none">>>> any court
recognizing international arbitration results — even if<br clear="none">>>> ICCANNs Board refused to participate in the binding arbitration.<br clear="none">>>> (assuming CCWG lawyers verify this works without activating a<br clear="none">>>> Membership model)<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> All decision taken on the above would require consensus , without<br clear="none">>>> more than two Advice against that ( non-voting of ACs)<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> I think we are close enough to get consensus around the above powers<br clear="none">>>> before we leave Dublin. And based on what we’ve heard recently,<br clear="none">>>> the board will support the powers described above.<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> *Action for Steve/Jonathan: *revise chart per call discussions (MEM
/<br clear="none">>>> Single Designator / Single Member) and send to lawyers before they<br clear="none">>>> can proceed with their work.<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> *Actions for lawyers*:<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> * Assess level of effort to do 2-part project as follows:<br clear="none">>>> * Part 1: completing the chart shown in AC. The chart shows the 6<br clear="none">>>> Powers and their enforcement in Board's MEM (within Bylaws),<br clear="none">>>> Designator, Sole Member. For first pass, only do each of the 3 as<br clear="none">>>> described. (If there is extra time, the lawyers can study options<br clear="none">>>> for personhood for SO/ACs in the models).<br clear="none">>>> * Part 2: Plan B design and lockdown<br
clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> Lawyers would like for this to be a priority if this needs to be<br clear="none">>>> ready by Dublin.<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> The more the documents can look simpler, the better. Minimal change<br clear="none">>>> is preferred.<br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>><br clear="none">>>> _______________________________________________<br clear="none">>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br clear="none">>>> <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br clear="none">>>> <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br clear="none">>><br clear="none">>> --<br clear="none">>><br clear="none">>> Matthew Shears<br clear="none">>> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for<br clear="none">>> Democracy & Technology <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect">mshears@cdt.org</a><br clear="none">>> + 44 771 247 2987<br clear="none">>><br clear="none">>><br clear="none">>><br clear="none">>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br clear="none">>> Avast logo <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a>> <br clear="none">>><br clear="none">>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.<br clear="none">>> <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a> <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a>><br clear="none">>><br clear="none">>><br clear="none">>><br clear="none">>><br clear="none">>> _______________________________________________<br clear="none">>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br clear="none">>> <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br clear="none">>> <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br clear="none">>><br clear="none">> _______________________________________________<br clear="none">> Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br clear="none">> <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br clear="none">><br clear="none">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br clear="none"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br clear="none"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></p></div></td></tr></table></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> </span></p></div></div></div></div></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>