[CCWG-ACCT] Working methods

Sun Aug 2 04:52:04 UTC 2015

Tijani,

haven't you figured out that you are wasting your time with these Co-Chairs?

Object already and put a Minority Viewpoint on the record.

el

-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Aug 1, 2015, at 22:37, Tijani BENJEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn> wrote:
> 
> Thank you Thomas for your prompt reply.
>  
> As I said several times, I’m engineer and I’m very bad in polemic. I only want to remind you that I said: “This would be acceptable (and even preferable) if it is not used as bases for finalizing the text to be submitted to public comment”, means that I do prefer a larger consultation assuming that the result will not be used for the text to be submitted for public comment. My point is very clear.
>  
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tijani BEN JEMAA
> Executive Director
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
> Phone:  + 216 41 649 605
> Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
> Fax:       + 216 70 853 376
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  
> . 
>  
> De : accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] De la part de Thomas Rickert
> Envoyé : samedi 1 août 2015 15:57
> À : tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn
> Cc : <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Working methods
>  
> Dear Tijani,
> thank you for your message. Let me respond to your second concern first. 
>  
> We have made clear from the start that we did not want to disginguish between members and participants, but that we are hoping to reach consensus amongst everyone in our group to get the broadest possible support. 
>  
> We will only identify the views of the members in case it is not possible to reach consensus in the whole group. 
>  
> We hope you still share our view that this approach is more inclusive as we try not to seperate members from participants. 
>  
> Please also note that we have discussed most of the issues over the last months and the recommendations evolved over time. In deed, the last days have been demanding for all of us, but - if I may share my personal experience over more than 15 years  - regardless of how long a project runs there is always a certain intensity towards completion. :-)
>  
> Most of the areas of our work got very strong support by most in our group and there are only a few questions that I think have caused your concerns. Especially for the discussions of these, community feedback will be very valuable. 
>  
> Remember, we will have 40 days of public comment, during that time our group will continue the discussion and we will carefully analyze comments as well as dissenting oipinions from within our group. 
>  
> The community may confirm all proposals we identified as getting most traction during discussions. The community may also give us direction that we need to rethink aspects of our work. Should this be the case, we will listen, assess and - as the case may be - adjust. Our report is clearly marked as the second draft, so it is not cast in stone.
>  
> Let me use this opportunity to thank you for being such a thoughtful and tireless contributor to our important work. 
>  
> Have a great weekend,
> Thomas
>  
> ---
> rickert.net
>  
> 
> Am 01.08.2015 um 13:39 schrieb Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn>:
> 
> Dear co-chairs,
>  
> I would like to express a general concern about our working methods:
>  
> 1.       I do think that the work undertaken by the CCWG is too important and will impact the future of ICANN and the Internet governance in general. I do not think that under any circumstance, we should run after a deadline even if it is imposed by a strong and valid reason because the result may not meet the interest of ICANN as organization and its community as a whole. I believe that our work should not be only done; it must be well done. 
>  
> During our work, we were pushed to work under very tight time, with several conference calls a day (we did 12 hours calls in 24 hours, divided in 3 parts). The number of text proposal was so huge that it was impossible to review and comment on them for a good participation; as a result, they do not reflect the exact opinion of all members of the group.
>  
> This makes me wonder who may really participate and impact the decisions in the group. Anyone who has another life than the CCWG one would definitely not be able to actively participle and follow all the language drafted. So, if you are not paid to do this work (by your government or by your company), you will never manage to have an efficient participation.
>  
> Since we were asked by the NTIA to evaluate the time required to finish our work, I was of the view that we have to take the necessary time for a well debated and agreed result.
>  
> This doesn’t mean the work done is not good: I would like here to thank very much the 2 raporteurs Jordan and Beky for their hard work and time and also the 3 co-Chairs for their continuous efforts for consensus building, but some parts need more discussion and more clarity that couldn’t be reached because of the time constraint.
>  
> Finally, I do prefer stay with the NTIA stewardship rather than transit it to the community without robust, clear, fair and workable accountability mechanisms accepted by all the community components.
>  
> 2.       As per our charter, only CCWG members participate in the decision making process. Also, the decisions should be taken by consensus. I noticed that when it was necessary to make a straw poll to get the temperature of the group about an issue where there was no full consensus, it was done with the participation of the whole people participating in the call, which doesn’t reflect the temperature of the members allowed to participate in the decision making. This would be acceptable (and even preferable) if it is not used as bases for finalizing the text to be submitted to public comment. 
>  
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tijani BEN JEMAA
> Executive Director
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
> Phone:  + 216 41 649 605
> Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
> Fax:       + 216 70 853 376
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> <~WRD000.jpg>
> L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast. 
> www.avast.com
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
> 
>   			 			
> L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast. 
> www.avast.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150802/aa28058d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD000.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150802/aa28058d/WRD000.jpg>