[CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F meeting

Thu Jan 1 22:58:49 UTC 2015

Dear Dr. Lisse

It isn’t a threat at all.  But this is a public process we are undertaking and it is actively being reviewed by the US Congress and outside groups here in the US, many of whom oppose any transition at all.  I write frequently and publicly on the topic and I am often called on to provide my views outside of this forum.  Early last year I testified before the US Congress on the matter in support of the transition provided adequate safeguards were in place.  That’s one of the reasons I joined as a participant – so that I would be better informed in my commentary.

So, if you are asking whether or not I will express the same views I have expressed inside this discussion on the outside to other forums in the United States (and elsewhere for that matter) the answer is of course I will.  That’s my privilege.  I am not in the least suggesting that I must get my way – but if the CCWG choses a particular path it can expect public comment on that path, whichever it takes.  If it is one that I support I will say so loudly and passionately.  If it is one that I think is misguided I will say that as well.

Paul

PS – As a side note, I of course, know that Bruce is the Board liaison.  As a liaison he does not bind the Board. 

**NOTE:  OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***

509 C St. NE

Washington, DC 20002

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el at lisse.na] 
Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 5:20 PM
To: Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert
Cc: Lisse Eberhard; <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F meeting

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 <mailto: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

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> 
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto: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/20150101/7c3cb1af/attachment.html>