[CCWG-ACCT] [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1)

[Dr Eberhard Lisse]

Jordan,

I have put the list in you took out, because it concerns the non ccNSO
members as much (or perhaps even more) as I also have pointed out (a few
times).


With all due respect, you may not have observed all my interactions in
person.

Secondly the argument that my minority views were not published because
I did not articulate them is absolute nonsense.  I was TOLD it would not
be done as there was no need for it under the Charter.

Probably that email or meeting note got lost in the deluge in your in tray.

I have set out my arguments a few number of times, they being summarily
ignored, I can set them out again. Until I am blue in the face. Never
mind that from it seems your below you are fully aware of them

I totally disagree that a thorough, well reasoned result of a Working
Group can be responsible for this mess. The Co-Chairs arbitrarily
decided the time-line, over my objections, in which I was joined in
different shapes forms of ways by at least one appointed member of each
chartering group.

There is no need for rushing things and rushing things is not conducive
to good results, or even participatory.

el


On 2015-05-06 10:09, Jordan Carter wrote:
> Hi all, hi Ebehard,
> 
> Replying just to ccNSO members and to the CCWG-Accountability:
> 
> On 6 May 2015 at 20:24, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el at lisse.na
> <mailto:el at lisse.na>> wrote:
> 
>     <snip>
> 
>  
> 
>     I have diligently participated and most constructively which was
>     stated by all three Co-Chairs (when it suited them, obviously)
>     during and after the Frankfurt and Istanbul meetings.
> 
> 
> I would like to record my observation that this is true except the
> "after the Istanbul" part. 
>  
> 
>     I have however since Singapore come to believe that we are doing
>     this wrong and have voiced this in Singapore repeatedly.
> 
> 
>     My objections mainly concern two issues, namely the refusal to deal
>     with the fundamental issues of IANA/ICANN accountability.
> 
> 
> For the benefit of those reading this who haven't been following your
> arguments, is it fair to argue that you've said that there is a
> foundational matter that is unresolved - what right the USG has over the
> root at all?
> 
> If that's right confirmation would be helpful, if it isn't a correction
> would also be helpful.
> 
> As a diligent participant in the CCWG for all of this year, I have to
> say that there is no clarity on what your "fundamental issues" are.
> 
> I'd go further. If you had written those down and suggested that they be
> attached to the comment report, I don't see how anyone could have objected.
> 
> Instead of doing that, you did object regularly and quite directly to
> the process - without taking the step of exercising the opportunity you
> were calling for.
> 
> So, the report does note it is not a consensus product - and in the
> absence of your concrete minority views, they were not able to be attached.
> 
> I am obviously not a co-chair, but I would have supported attaching your
> views had you produced them. I will maintain that position should you do
> so in the next report, for the record.
> 
>  
> 
> 
>     And the process ie the rushing to an arbitrary deadline without
>     careful consideration.  
> 
> 
> I do not agree there is a lack of care in the consideration. Nor do I
> agree that there are no external factors guiding the work we need to do
> and when we need to do it by. Our links with the CWG's names stewardship
> proposal are on the record, and it is not a luxury we have to take years
> to do this work.
> 
> I hope there is not a widespread view that the IANA stewardship
> transition should be delayed endlessly so that we can adopt a very
> leisurely pace on improving ICANN's accountability.
>  
> 
>     As a member of the FoI Wg I have
>     participated in what must be considered the yardstick on thorough
>     and considered review and debate.
> 
> 
> Indeed. I haven't heard anyone criticise the quality of that work. Yet
> it seems to me that the time taken to do it, and for any policy required
> arising from it to be put into place, is part of the problem we find
> ourselves in.
>  
> <snip>
> 
> 
>     I strongly urge ccTLD Managers to soundly reject this rubbish
>     "report" which tinkers on the surface, with the effect of tossing
>     ccTLD Managers a few bones on issues that don't concern them really,
>     and to demand that the fundamental questions that affect us ccTLD
>     Managers are asked and answered.
> 
> 
> I strongly urge you, Eberhard, to clearly and succinctly set out the
> following matters:
> 
> - what you think the fundamental questions are
> - what you think is irrelevant in the current set of proposals
> - why you think the fundamental questions you mention have to be solved
> by the CCWG, as opposed to the ccNSO itself or the CWG
> 
> Based on the wide consensus in the CCWG, including among other ccTLD
> managers, I think you might find yourself out on a limb and representing
> the views of nobody other than yourself. 
> 
> I would welcome knowing whether that is the case, or whether your views
> are shared by the majority. 
> 
> Unfortunately, in the absence of you setting out your arguments, neither
> of us will ever know...
> 
> 
> bests
> 
> Jordan
[...]

-- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/