[CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F meeting

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Dear co-chairs,

(through the co-chairs)

English is only my third language and I am not that familiar with reading between the lines of US new-speak, and hence need your assistance in determining wether my understanding of this being a threat if doesn't get his way is correct, and if so whether it is acceptable under the charter?

greetings, el

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Jan 1, 2015, at 22:38, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> 
> Mathieu
>  
> You are, of course, the Co-Chair and you will have to figure out how to interact with the Board.  I hope, however, that you will not be reluctant to make the Board accountable.  I can see the headline here in the US now  “ICANN Accountability Board Not Even Willing To Ask Questions.”     Frankly, I would write it myself …..
>  
> Paul
>  
> **NOTE:  OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***
> 509 C St. NE
> Washington, DC 20002
>  
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
> Link to my PGP Key
>  
> From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 5:33 AM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F meeting
>  
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> During our call #4 we had an exchange of views regarding the expected outcome of our upcoming F2F meeting in Frankfurt. We agreed that we would initiate a discussion on the list on the proposals that we shared before finalizing at our next meeting. Clarity about expected outcomes is necessary before we get deeper into the preparation of this important step in our work. 
> 
> The current expected outcomes we submit for your review and comments are the following :
> 
> a. Finalize agreement on scope of the group & definition, such as the purpose of accountability (as discussed, a strawman proposal is being drafted and will be circulated shortly)
> b. Agree on WS1 vs WS2 classification criteria + priorities. This should enable to provide clarity about expected outcome of WS1.
> c. Conclude inventory work from work areas, and as such, the assessment of Icann's current situation with regards to accountability. (please note this should include a list of the main contingencies we would "stress test" our proposals against).
> 
> We are aware this is rather ambitious but hopeful this can be achieved thanks to the quality of the prep work from work areas as well as good preparation in the timeframe leading to Frankfurt. 
> 
> Your comments and feedbacks are welcome. 
> 
> Best regards, and happy new year to all of you !  
> 
> -- 
> *****************************
> Mathieu WEILL
> For the Co-chairs
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150102/b24aa0cb/attachment.html>