[CCWG-ACCT] Feedback from GAC session

[Thomas Rickert]

Dear Kavouss,
the question of time needed for implementation is on our radar. However, we will only be able to really speak to this once we know a bit more about what recommendations we will likely make as implementation times depend on that.

Best
Thomas
---
rickert.net


> Am 08.02.2015 um 23:08 schrieb Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
> 
> Dear Co chairs
> Dear All,
> 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.
> 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 "
> 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.
> 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.
> During the discussion on the output of CWG, the interrelation between activities of CCWG and CWG, in particular the overlapping issue was also raised. 
> Kavouss   
> 
> 
> 2015-02-08 11:08 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na>:
>> 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
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150209/e4ac78f4/attachment.html>