[CCWG-ACCT] Where do we stand? (Was Re: Blog post on the Accountability work headed to Dublin)
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Sun Oct 11 14:10:17 UTC 2015
hi,
I appreciate that my view has no currency with you.
And while I, too, am always happy to hear how our chairs interpret the
consensus or lack of consensus, which they believe we have reached, I
would argue that it is the CCWG, or perhaps the CCWG members - we may be
getting to that point (I am not a member), that determine where we are.
The co-chairs read the signs, tell us where they think we are and we
(or maybe the members) let them know if they got it right.
Or at least that is how I thought it worked.
avri
On 11-Oct-15 00:47, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> Hello Avri,
>
> Thanks for your response, I will not really attempt to address your
> view so this does not distract from the essence of starting this thread.
>
> I think we have quite a number of differing individual opinion and it
> gets so high at times that we miss the directions from the Co-Chairs.
>
> I will really appreciate that the Co-Chairs specifically provide
> response to this question so we have an idea of what page we are
> officially at in this process.
>
> Regards
> PS: Co-Chairs may also just put a stamp on what Avri has said if
> that's their understanding as well.
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On 10 Oct 2015 20:32, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> (I know this was addressed to the co-chairs and i am not one, yet I
> presume to have an opinion on the subject)
>
> As far as I understood we are, in parallel:
>
> a. analyzing and trying to respond to the comments, including
> those by
> the Board, made about defects in explanation and design in the SM
> model
> of Draft 2
> b. analyzing the MEM counter proposal made by the Board
>
> I disagree with your claim that working on the SM model is
> impractical.
> It is still the model that responds to the largest number of community
> concerns and best meets the CWG requirements.
>
> The suggestion by Steve D. is just that, a suggestion. I do not
> believe
> that there is a consensus in the group, at least not yet, about taking
> that path. Many, myself among them, have argued that we are not
> comfortable with putting off the major accountability changes that are
> required by the loss of NTIA. Yes, we need to prune and make sure that
> the changes we work on are necessary for WS1, but given the
> uncertainties about the post transition and any possible WS2, we must
> make sure that the WS1 solution is sufficient.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 10-Oct-15 14:53, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> >
> > Dear Co-Chairs,
> >
> > FWIW, I think at this point, it will be good to have an
> understanding
> > of where we are heading from the Co-Chairs. In some discussions it
> > seem we have understood and agreed that a model that implies a
> > structural change is impractical during this transition phase hence
> > the suggestion made by Steve.
> >
> > Yet in other discussions it seem we are going ahead with the
> > structural change model irrespective of the concerns raised from
> parts
> > of the community and board.
> >
> > In other to prepare towards Dublin and contribute in a
> meaningful way,
> > I think a summary of where we are presently and what is expected
> to be
> > achieved in Dublin will be helpful. I apologise if this has already
> > been shared, and in that case a pointer will be appreciated.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> > Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> >
> > On 10 Oct 2015 19:37, "Stephen Deerhake" <sdeerhake at nic.as
> <mailto:sdeerhake at nic.as>
> > <mailto:sdeerhake at nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake at nic.as>>> wrote:
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > Perhaps the Board chair is articulating a minority viewpoint?
> > Afterall, the
> > Board will have to vote on the matter of sending/not sending the
> > output of
> > the CCWG on to NTIA.
> >
> > Stephen Deerhake
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>>
> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>>] On
> > Behalf Of Paul
> > Rosenzweig
> > Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 6:05 AM
> > To: 'Bruce Tonkin' <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
> <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> > <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
> <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>>; 'Accountability Cross
> > Community' <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>>
> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work
> > headed to
> > Dublin
> >
> > With respect Bruce, I share Anne's view that this is not
> > accurate. The
> > Board chair has stated unequivocally that the Board will not
> submit a
> > Membership based proposal. That is contrary to the
> statement that
> > the Board
> > will submit any proposal it receives from the CCWG "as is."
> That is
> > categorically ruling out one type of "as is" proposal.
> >
> > If you are seriously telling me that even after all this
> back and
> > forth the
> > Board actually would submit a "Membership only" based
> proposal to
> > the NTIA
> > then I would respectfully say that the Board has done a very
> poor
> > job of
> > communicating.
> >
> > So ... answer this question please as directly as you are
> > willing: If,
> > today, the CCWG having considered but declined to accept the
> > Board's input
> > were to submit a proposal based upon a Membership organization
> > would the
> > Board transmit it to the NTIA as the ICANN proposal?
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > Paul Rosenzweig
> > paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
> > <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
> > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
> > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
> > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
> > Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> > Link to my PGP Key
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
> <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> > <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
> <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>]
> > Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:03 PM
> > To: 'Accountability Cross Community'
> > <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>>
> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Blog post on the Accountability work
> > headed to
> > Dublin
> >
> > Hello Paul,
> >
> > Regarding:
> >
> > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
> >
> > The statement still holds.
> >
> > The Board has provided input on a draft document so far, and has
> > stated all
> > along that it would raise any concerns along the way and not
> wait
> > for a
> > final proposal to raise any concerns.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bruce Tonkin
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
> >
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
> >
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
> >
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list