[CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
Sun Feb 21 16:49:35 UTC 2016
> if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following:
> 3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all.
Well, it has indeed become increasingly clear since nigh on two years that a few participants do not accept the underlying multistakeholder structure of ICANN, at all.
Thankyou, Paul, for explicitly confirming that.
On 21 Feb 2016, at 17:07, "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> I agree completely with Eberhard (except for his personal characterization of the Co-Chairs). But he is completely right that having declared a Consensus for the Co-Chairs to now allow this matter to be reopened is not good management.
> For myself, if we are going to reopen previously agreed consensus, I will push to reopen the following:
> 1) Change from Single Member to Single Designator
> 2) GAC advice gets a 60% threshold
> 3) ACs allowed in the Empowered Community at all
> All of those are things that I’m unhappy with. So if the Board gets to intervene at the last minute and reopen this (thus destroying the timeline), let’s just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we?
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> Link to my PGP Key
> From: epilisse at gmail.com [mailto:epilisse at gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM
> To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors at omadhina.net>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
> I agree with Ed Morris' request (not with his agreement :-)-O), but would then also like to reopen Sole Membership up revisiting.
> In any case let me place the current state on the record:
> Our proposal is so complicated that we do not understand it ourselves, or (rather) remember what we agreed on a week ago exactly.
> But the negotiation tactics of Board and GAC have us worn down so that it doesn't matter what we agreed upon, just ship something (anything rather) and be done with it.
> These are well known, classical negotiation tactics, by experienced professional negotiators, dealing with multilateral negotiations for a living.
> Besides that, I put the blame for this straight at the dysfunctional (and very quiet) co-chairs who, I feel, should have some form of recall of what we had Consensus on (not Full Consensus :-)-O) a week ago, and put the foot down about these tactics, for example have the Board members participating object and add minority statement.
> In any case, if we are going the route of reopening our Final Report to anything but increasing Consensus, I demand the right to update my Minority Statement and we need a new time line.
> Come to think about it, write it up, add that we have no Consensus, but that this is what we got by way of self imposed time lime, and let the Chartering Organizations sort out this mess.
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini
> On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>, wrote:
> +2 - with the additional caveat that if the compromise we have is to be extinguished, those of us who were willing to agree to the carve out rather than insist that the GAC make a choice between advisor and participant are free to return to our former positions.
> 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