[CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
James Gannon
james at cyberinvasion.net
Sat Feb 20 21:08:46 UTC 2016
+1 Avri.
-James
On 20/02/2016, 8:58 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Avri Doria" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of avri at acm.org> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>No matter what I think about the acceptability of one more compromise, I
>agree that it is time to move one and finish. More studies are not
>going to make this issue any clearer.
>
>If we are unable to accept the Board's suggestion, then we should just
>leave it to them to add yet one more 'minority' opinion to the report.
>
>avri
>
>On 20-Feb-16 22:41, Phil Corwin wrote:
>>
>> Jordan:
>>
>>
>>
>> I am in full agreement with your statement:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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…
>>
>>
>>
>> Indeed, seeking such an analysis is likely to add even further delay.
>>
>>
>>
>> We are already far past the timeline we were originally told must be
>> adhered for completion of the Final Report to allow for the necessary
>> review by the NTIA and other USG agencies, as well as for
>> Congressional oversight of the transition and accountability
>> proposals, and to thereby avoid the necessity for a further extension
>> of the IANA contract past September 30, 2016. The Chartering
>> Organizations, including the GNSO, already faced substantial
>> challenges in completing their review and providing well considered
>> positions on the twelve separate recommendations by March 9th – and
>> that was before being informed by the Co-Chairs yesterday that
>> delivery of the Final Report will be delayed by a minimum of five
>> additional days.
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe that the community has all the information required to
>> resolve the remaining issue and that there is no need for additional
>> legal analysis; and that community members who are unclear on the
>> details of the present debate can obtain it from both their official
>> chartering organization representative or from other active CCWG
>> participants in whom they place trust.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards to all,
>>
>> Philip
>>
>>
>>
>> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>>
>> *Virtualaw LLC*
>>
>> *1155 F Street, NW*
>>
>> *Suite 1050*
>>
>> *Washington, DC 20004*
>>
>> *202-559-8597/Direct*
>>
>> *202-559-8750/Fax*
>>
>> *202-255-6172/cell***
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>>
>>
>>
>> */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf
>> Of *Jordan Carter
>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 20, 2016 3:17 PM
>> *To:* Megan.Richards at ec.europa.eu
>> *Cc:* acct-staff at icann.org; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> We are talking about a very narrow point in a broader very simple
>> situation: where GAC chooses to exercise its right to offer consensus
>> advice, which comes with an obligation on ICANN to try and find a
>> mutually agreeable path if disagreement arises.
>>
>>
>>
>> The working group has agreed that GAC, being uniquely empowered with
>> that right, should not also be able to make decisions on community
>> powers that relate to decisions related to that advice. So far, so
>> good. The carve out. For a rare situation.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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. The
>> completion of the group's work in times for Marrakech is therefore at
>> risk, again (last time it meant Dublin was at risk).
>>
>>
>>
>> All I want is for people to take responsibility for the consequences
>> of their decisions.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jordan
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, 21 February 2016, <Megan.Richards at ec.europa.eu
>> <mailto: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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Megan
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>
>> On 20 Feb 2016, at 01:22, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
>> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jordan Carter
>> Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>>
>> +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>>
>> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> 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
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list