[CCWG-Accountability] WA4 and next steps

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Co chairs
Thank you very much for your wise advice and wisdom
Unfortunately WA4 became a tribune of dispute between people .
I think the role of chair is to conduct the meeting with a view to arrive
at consensus or at least convergence
He or she should not take a harsh approach and disputing every body and
pushing for its own way of thinking .
In this world that we are living there is no right and wrong ( back and
white ) notion .
There are many other colours or combination of colours in between.
No one could claim or insist that he is the master of any one else  .and
she or he is right  and others are wrong.
No chair has the right to say that she or he disregard any proposal at all.
We need to put the things at their proper place .
You perhaps have noted the exchange of e-mails between me and the chair of
WA4 .While I respect him fully and recognize his very friendly, polite
behavior including his courtesy, I do not understand his way of thinking
and intolerances.
The chair should not get into dispute with participants , we need to show a
degree of understanding
Every body is right in what she or he saying and the notion of someone
being wrong does not exist . The issue is that we need to demonstrate some
level of understanding and collaboration and continue to build up the
friendly atmosphere governing CCWG and other groups working on transition.
Regards
Kavouss

2015-01-12 20:02 GMT+01:00 McAuley, David <dmcauley at verisign.com>:

> Dear co-chairs,
>
> Thanks to those involved in the debate that has been going on surrounding
> the contingencies/stress tests.
>
> I believe that Steve DelBianco’s latest “de-cluttered” approach is best.
>
> While some of the tests might be merged at some point (e.g. the separate
> tests for change authority and delegation authority; and certain kinds of
> financial crises), for now more and crisper specificity, in my opinion, is
> critical.
>
> As a number of participants have noted from time to time about
> accountability, this transition is the ONE chance to get it right.
>
> (BTW, the BC’s idea of stress tests has received significant support in
> the overall community over the last year plus -  so to not pursue it as
> proposed to the community would be to ignore community input in that
> respect. Moreover, our CCWG charter tells us how to do scenarios, and we
> should adhere to that charter.)
>
> ICANN’s board today is comprised of people of accomplishment, honor, and
> dedication to the best interests of the Internet – but that state of
> affairs is not guaranteed – and the transition is forever.
>
> If there is to be any winnowing of the list, or any merging of tests,
> let’s reserve that until after the Singapore F2F, when this group will may
> have had sufficient time and discussions to have developed a realistic
> sense of what tests are needed.
>
> I have been reading through some recent IRP panel decisions and
> Reconsideration Requests and come away from that process thinking that any
> community member with a grievance today has a mighty tall (nearly
> impossible) climb ahead of them to make the case, or even get documents to
> fully understand what happened.
>
> In that process, I kept in mind that one significant Board step of recent
> years was to formally NARROW the scope of review of Board action. David
> Maher covered that bylaws change well in Circle ID last year:
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140829_accountability_and_redress/
>
> All of this work is important – coming up with the right mechanisms for
> objective accountability, and creation of a binding appeals mechanism.  The
> process for testing the ultimately chosen mechanisms should be inclusive at
> this stage.
>
> David McAuley
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
> Rickert
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 12:14 PM
> To: Accountability Cross Community
> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] WA4 and next steps
>
> Dear all,
> as you know, WA 4 is working on a list of contingencies that we need to
> address when working on accountability mechanisms. This work is still in
> progress and we will surely discuss the individual items on the list in
> Frankfurt to then make a determination as to whether the list is complete
> and whether all items that are currently on the list are in scope of our
> work.
>
> While this work is going on, we recommend that either WA4 or other
> individuals start going through the list of contingencies (as well as
> contingencies that you think should be on the list, which are not yet
> there) and start analyzing whether these contingencies are already being
> taken care of by existing accountability mechanisms or work previously done
> by ICANN (and its community). Such analysis will help us to better
> understand whether the list is complete and accurate.
>
> The outcome of this analysis can be the following:
>
> - A determination is made that the contingency is adequately addressed by
> an existing mechanism. In this case, we would conclude that no further work
> needs to be done on this item by this group and write a rationale to
> explain this.
>
> - A determination is made that the contingency is not adequately addressed
> by an existing mechanism. In this case, we would need to define what is
> missing and write that as part of our report. As we move on, we will then
> see what needs there are and analyze those. As an outcome of that analysis,
> we will potentially need to amend one or multiple existing accountability
> mechanisms or, where that proves insufficient or not feasible, establish
> new accountability mechanisms. Ideally, we would be able to cluster
> additional demand to ensure that we need to make as few changes /
> inventions as possible by coming up with responses that each cover multiple
> issues.
>
> We will discuss this during tomorrow’s call, but we would like to
> encourage you to review the current list and pick one or more contingencies
> that you would volunteer to work on.
>
> Thanks,
> Mathieu, León and Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150112/920448c4/attachment.html>