[CCWG-ACCT] Feedback from GAC session

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

I am EXTREMELY concerned about the GAC, since apparently after
several years of work in the Framework of Interpretation Working
Group in which 5 liaisons of the GAC (Heather Dryden, Jayantha
Fernando, Frank March, Alice Munyua, Suzanne Radell) participated,
and during which we briefed the GAC at almost every ICANN Meeting
about our progress, they are now basically saying they know nothing
about it, and they are upset about that we did it, never mind the
charter and their participation.

This casts doubt on the reliability and predictability of any GAC
involvement and I need to know why GAC members are present and
liaising (on behalf of the GAC) when the GAC later reneges.

This needs to be cleared and/or settled, prior to any further work
being conducted in ANY Wg with GAC involvement, but in particular
this one.

Or in other words, if that is the case, indeed, we do not need GAC
liaison (or "members") on the CCWG-Accountability.

Of course they can participate as "participants" in their personal
capacity like anyone else.


And, I find it ABSOLUTELY unacceptable that such a meeting is not
announced to the Mailing List and conducted by the co-chairs
basically behind the back of the "members", liasions, "participants"
and observers.

Just to make sure, that means UNACCEPTABLE! Never mind
accountability.

greetings, el

On 2015-02-08 15:26 , Mathieu Weill wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> This morning Thomas & I attended a session in the GAC to update on
> our progress.  Apologies to the members of the group who did not
> spot this meeting, we had very short notice.  Leon could for
> instance not make it.
> 
> FYI, I paste below in telegram style the main feedbacks from the
> short Q&A session that took place.
> 
>> Inputs from GAC room : -Argentina (Olga) : current focus of CCWG
>> is focused on Icann itself.  Requests more engagement outside,
>> especially in Latin America.  also raised the issue of equal
>> footing in the future community system.  This will be a sensitive
>> issue for GAC
>>
>> - Spain: When considering the option of member organisation, why
>> not go beyond US law ?  Feels that it limits participation to US
>> experts.  Also insists that accountability mechanisms must be
>> effective, independent, affordable
>>
>> - France : Very supportive of our proposals and suggested that
>> the GAC supports the principles.  Looking for a way to create
>> some form of Board oversight
>>
>> - Brazil : Acknowledged quality of CCWG work.  Stresses
>> importance of "independent" review & redress.  Also noted that
>> the way the Board will consider proposals will be very sensitive
>> for them.
>>
>> - Germany : Concern about interelation with CWG and timelines.
>>
>> I did welcome the input and noted that GAC input was consistent
>> with input from other parts of the community, which I found quite
>> encouraging.
> 
> -- 
> *****************************
> 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
>