[CCWG-ACCT] Feedback from GAC session

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Further to my below, and you are all aware that I raised this as
part of my intervention during our interaction with the GAC, this is
from the GAC Communique:

	With regard to the CCWG-Accountability:

	• GAC Members will continue to work within the CCWG to
	develop the proposals for enhancing ICANN’s
	accountability, with reporting back to the GAC and guidance
	on major issues from the GAC as a whole;

	• The GAC will work to identify particular issues for
	governments as both individual or collective participants in
	any new or enhanced mechanisms;

	• The next stage of the GAC input to relevant work streams
	will include public policy principles that could guide
	development of any new or enhanced accountability
	mechanisms;

	• The GAC will contribute to the work of the CCWG towards
	a consensus proposal for submission to the ICANN Board.
	Both processes will have the highest priority for GAC
	inter-sessional work, the GAC being mindful of the updated
	timeline.

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-board-11feb15-en.pdf

I am grateful to the GAC for clarifying this, in particular the two-way
channel to the GAC as a whole.

greetings, el

On 2015-02-08 11:08 , Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> 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.
[...]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=zG+Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----