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

Sat Feb 20 22:41:49 UTC 2016

Dear All,
Frustration manifested more and more. But there could be a way out .We can
not just be indifference. We should learn from those that never
disappointed but try till the last mintues
Regards
Kavouss

2016-02-20 23:12 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

> Dear All,
> I am sure the Board would include its concerns if CCWG ignore to consider
> that concern
> It id not Minority statement .
> Board should not be labelled as Minority.
>  Regards
> Kavousd
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 20 Feb 2016, at 21:58, Avri Doria <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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160220/17f67456/attachment-0001.html>