[CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sat Feb 20 03:43:14 UTC 2016

Dear Co-Chairs

Here it is 0340UTC and I am still following all exchanged e-mails.

Some of them promising and some other disappointing

The Co-Chairs decision to hold on the forwarding the final report till the
issue of threshold is resolved is the most WISE and the most appropriate

I fully support it .

Good luck for CCWG call on 26 Feb.



2016-02-20 1:19 GMT+01:00 León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>:

> Dear all,
> As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19
> February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to
> do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a
> full group.
> There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board
> removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we
> came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation
> #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be
> acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February
> drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw).
> We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority
> statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the
> Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note,
> apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the
> latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February:
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/011056.html.
> While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those
> of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their
> respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main
> target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting
> the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process.
> It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published the
> report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of a Board
> disagreement later in the process.
> We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to
> Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity
> to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday’s
> CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and
> directions the group can take at this stage, each with different
> implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a
> group.
> Until the Tuesday call, let’s keep open channels of communication on our
> mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the
> Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule.
> As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant,
> our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO
> and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage
> constructively and recognize each other’s value to the multistakeholder
> model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is
> the time to act accordingly.
>  Thank you,
> Thomas, León, Mathieu
> *CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs*
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160220/1aeb121a/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list