[CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sat Feb 20 20:39:32 UTC 2016
On 20 Feb 2016 9:17 p.m., "Jordan Carter" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
> It is not even slightly clear why any such analysis would help with the
current discussion. And it is very clear that keeping an item open to
Marrakech is the wrong thing to do.
FWIW, I agree with this, unless we don't want the transition to get
through. Noting should be open at Marrakesh as the SO/AC should just be
there to consider and accept or reject the proposal as per the timeline.
> Then, to preserve a non-unanimity rule, some adjustments were made to the
thresholds to assess community support / opposition in those cases. Those
have been clearly documented by Becky.
SO: Documented is the right word but whether it's been agreed upon is
another thing entirely.
> So having done all that, it appears there is now some confusion about
what was agreed.
> All that needs to be found (all - hah!) is a path back to closure.
SO: +1 and IMO it's good to have this clarified and closed now in the
interest of delivering at Marrakesh.
> But let's be clear. We are once again after the end of this process
re-opening something at the behest of ICANN's board, with messages that
were not clear and seek to second guess the work of the CCWG.
SO: No idea why things are read this way even though you acknowledged that
there is indeed confusion and even though there has been ample comment
shared before the board's. What perhaps is disappointing is that it takes
the board to bring us to reconsideration especially when some participants
have raised adequate concern.
> For me, as a voting member of the ccwg, I will go with whatever approach
closes this out as quickly as possible. But I am no longer confident that
that will be quick enough to salvage this process.
SO: Thanks for the openness, let us be positive and this would go smoothly,
we need to address this with an open mind and not be rigid about it.
Irrespective of the current proposal completing in Marrakesh, the
transition has been doubtful for me since we missed September.
> An independent legal analysis on the questions to hand isn't going to
un-make the Board's intervention, isn't going to un-make days of delay. I
also don't see how it can help to answer the substantive question raised,
but perhaps, Megan, you could set out how it might?
> On Sunday, 21 February 2016, <Megan.Richards at ec.europa.eu> wrote:
>> I wonder if an objective, independent analysis from the external legal
counsel (or based on their already extensive assessments) would help to
focus the real impact/change from status quo of the contentious part of the
proposal? This could permit all members, participants and, in particular
those who have not had the "advantage" of following the discussions in
detail to analyse the relative impact from their perspectives.
>> Sent from my iPad
>> On 20 Feb 2016, at 01:22, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <
leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> wrote:
>>> 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
>>> 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:
>>> 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
>>> 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
> Jordan Carter
> Chief Executive, InternetNZ
> +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community