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

Wed May 6 18:22:26 UTC 2015

I will leave it to others to sort out the details of the discussion, but as a participant in the CCWG I would like to note my opinion that the co-chairs, rapporteurs, and staff have demonstrated outstanding fairness and professionalism in managing what has been, so far, a complex and demanding endeavor.

David McAuley

-----Original Message-----
From: cctldcommunity-bounces at cctld-managers.org [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces at cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 12:20 PM
To: roelofmeijerforwarder; ccnso-members at icann.org; cctldcommunity at cctld-managers.org; Eberhard Lisse
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1)

I fully support Roelof's analysis.

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: cctldcommunity-bounces at cctld-managers.org [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces at cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Roelof Meijer
Sent: 06 May 2015 16:37
To: ccnso-members at icann.org; cctldcommunity at cctld-managers.org; Eberhard Lisse
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1)

Dear ccTLD colleagues,

It is with reluctance that I react to this thread, but I feel obliged to do so.
Reluctance, because I prefer to ignore Eberhard Lisse when he sends out one of his quite characteristic emails.
Obliged, however, because as his advice to you on how to deal with the request for community feed-back on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 proposals published on 4 May, he "strongly urge[s] all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this rubbish².

I consider that to be very poor, even irresponsible, advice, and urge you to read the report and give your feed-back. If you don¹t agree; let us know, if you have suggestions for improvements; tell us. But above all:
give us guidance with your opinion on the specific issues that we ask your feed-back on in the report.

The Enhancement of ICANN¹s Accountability is an inseparable part of the IANA Stewardship Transition, a conditio sine qua non. The successful transition of the IANA Stewardship is a necessity for the global, single internet to develop to it¹s maximum potential.
However, we will not have a second chance any time soon and thus we cannot afford to fail. The final proposals to enhance ICANN¹s accountability and to transition to IANA Stewardship are the ultimate test of the multi-stakeholder model and failure would, in the end, mean the end of that model.

So you cannot even afford to ignore the CCWG draft proposals, or any other proposal in this process. Unless maybe if you want to get rid of the multi-stakeholder model...

Like Eberhard Lisse, I am one of the ccTLD Community¹s participants in the CCWG. Very unlike Eberhard Lisse, I am proud of what the CCWG published on
4 May. It is certainly not perfect, it surely is not complete and it is definitely not final. The timeline, the enormous amount of work, the unknown territories we had to explore and insights and opinions we had to unite, made the process quite painful at times.
But the result -and in the end that is what really counts- is good. To be
honest: far better then I expected.
And quite solid enough to ask your feed-back on. So it can be improved.

Our three co-chairs Mathieu Weill, Thomas Rickert and León Felipe Sánchez-Ambia deserve no criticism, but our deep respect. For their leadership and guidance, for the substance they brought and also for the way they acted on feed-back from the group or individual members/participants.
They were -and are- real assets in this process. Eberhard Lisse, in my opinion, is not.

Best regards,

Roelof A. Meijer
CEO

SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O.
Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 roelof.meijer at sidn.nl
| www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/>

On 06-05-15 07:44, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:

>Dear Byron, Dear Colleagues,
>
>To set the record straight, Dr Lisse's statements about the violation 
>of the CCWG Accountability Charter and the dynamics of the group are a 
>misrepresentation of facts. Speaking of facts, we are more than happy 
>to provide details in response to the accusations as well as 
>explanations we gave to Dr Lisse on the public mailing list, to support our statement.
>
>We would also note for the benefit of readers of these lists that Dr 
>Lisse has filed countless objections against almost everything the CCWG 
>did since it started. Participants and members of the CCWG have 
>expressed to the co-chairs that they consider Dr Lisse's behaviour as 
>an attempt to discredit the work of fellow volunteers and derail the 
>work of the group.
>
>We will not burden everyone on the lists that were cc-ed with details, 
>especially when we have the opportunity to discuss and engage on 
>substance. But we wanted to set this record straight, and express our 
>deep sadness about the use of such a process within the ccTLD community.
>
>That being said, we encourage other ccTLD members and participants in 
>the CCWG to express their views related to the substance of the proposals.
>
>Best,
>Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill, co-chairs
>
>Le 05/05/2015 11:36, Dr Eberhard Lisse a écrit :
>> [sorry for the double post, technical issue] Dear Byron,
>>
>> as tmember appointed by the (chartering) ccNSO to the CCWG 
>> Accountability I have followed the Charter, in particular in raising 
>> my concerns of my points consistently being ignored and rejected by 
>> the Co-Chairs of this CCWG, one of whom is Mathieu Weill, the posting 
>> of whom, herein-under, I wish to address, "through the chair".
>>
>> Please assure that staff forwards this to all Council Members who do 
>> not have access to the above lists.
>>
>>
>> These "current proposals" have been arrived at in violation of the 
>> Charter, without the necessary Consensus Call for all positions, and 
>> in violation of the Charter by refusing the opportunity to attach 
>> minority views.
>>
>> They also have been rushed over the objection of myself in which I 
>> have been joined in various degrees, shape or form by appointed 
>> members of every constituency chartering, even several GAC members 
>> expressing themselves in this regard.
>>
>> This was done in order to get "something" passed prior to a non 
>> existing deadline instead of doing this carefully, thoroughly and 
>> inclusively.
>>
>> As usual the gNSO members and in particular un-appointed participants 
>> representing large interests were/are the driving force behind this 
>> rush-job.
>>
>> The document is so convoluted that an expensive graphics company was 
>> hired for several months to generate these professional graphics in 
>> order to just be able to understand the document.
>>
>> Even Mathieu doesn't understand it, because he not only refers to it 
>> as a "report" which under the Charter REQUIRES a Consensus Call and 
>> attachment of minority views, if any, and he alleges that it has any 
>> relevance to ccTLDs, which is has not.
>>
>> The community he refers to is ill defined, and in any case the ccNSO 
>> has no mandate whatsoever to act on decisions, acts or omissions 
>> affecting individual ccTLDs.
>>
>> According to the Charter the CCWG must address ALL accountability 
>> issues with the exception of administrative and operational IANA 
>> issues, which were to have been addressed by CWG Stewardship, where 
>> they were not being addressed, of course.
>>
>> This was used to refuse and/or ignore any request that had anything 
>> to do with the root zone and/or the IANA Function, in particular the 
>> fundamental issues, which remain unresolved.
>>
>> I will post something like this into the Comment Box for the record, 
>> but I strongly urge all ccTLD Managers to strongly oppose this 
>> rubbish.
>>
>>
>> Finally, I am personally offended by him thanking the ccTLD members 
>> and characterizing their participation, in particular since hardly 
>> any input by ccTLD members/participants had any effect on ccTLD 
>> Managers' positions, and because he does not mean it.
>>
>> For me it is not a pleasure to work in this CCWG and in particular 
>> not an honor to work with him and any other of the other Co-Chairs.
>>
>>
>> el
>>
>> On 2015-05-05 07:53, Mathieu Weill wrote:
>>> Thank you Gabi for sharing this announcement.
>>>
>>> In addition to the public comment announcement
>>> 
>>>(https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-prop
>>>osa
>>>l-2015-05-04-en)
>>> the CCWG-Accountability produced some graphics describing the 
>>>current  proposals (PDF,
>>> 
>>>https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52897394/XPL_CCWG_Il
>>>lus
>>>tratedConcepts_v2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1430799940397&api=v2
>>>)  , which you might find helpful, although of course nothing 
>>>replaces  reading the actual report.
>>>
>>> While this report is not focused on IANA, it is very relevant to 
>>>ccTLDs
>>> : it addresses the accountability enhancements requested by the CWG 
>>>Iana  stewardship transition latest proposal, proposes additional 
>>>powers for  the community, including the ccNSO, and strongly 
>>>reinforces Icannn's  appeal mechanisms.
>>>
>>> For more details, the CCWG-Accountability will hold two identical 
>>> webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time 
>>> zones. The webinars will take place on:
>>>
>>>      11 May from 11:00  12:30 UTC
>>>      11 May from 19:00  20:30 UTC
>>>
>>> Details can be found here :
>>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en
>>>
>>> I seize this opportunity to thank all ccTLD members and participants 
>>> to this group. They have done a tremendous job, demonstrating the 
>>> value of ccTLD inputs to the overall community. As co-chair, it is a 
>>> great pleasure and an honour to work with such a team.
>>>
>>> We are now more than ever in listening mode and look forward to your 
>>> questions and feedbacks.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Mathieu
>> [...]
>>
>
>--
>*****************************
>Mathieu WEILL
>AFNIC - directeur général
>Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
>mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>Twitter : @mathieuweill
>*****************************
>
>_______________________________________________
>ccTLDcommunity mailing list
>ccTLDcommunity at cctld-managers.org
>http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
>
>To unsubscribe please send a blank email to 
>ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe at lists.cctld-managers.org

_______________________________________________
ccTLDcommunity mailing list
ccTLDcommunity at cctld-managers.org
http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity

To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe at lists.cctld-managers.org
_______________________________________________
ccTLDcommunity mailing list
ccTLDcommunity at cctld-managers.org
http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity

To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe at lists.cctld-managers.org