[CCWG-ACCT] Feedback from GAC session

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Thomas,
Tks for reply,
Yes I agree with your comments.
I just wanted to reflect what was discussed at GAC and what was the views
of NTIA.
I wanted to remind ourselves not to forget to address this important issue
and not to leave it to the end of our works and not to be criticized that
we proposed some actions without considering its implementation time
Am I correct ?
Kavouss /


2015-02-09 3:20 GMT+01:00 Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>:

> 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/20150209/0e44b09c/attachment.html>