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

Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Sun Feb 21 18:16:50 UTC 2016


Well, that's just silly - there are probably a dozen people who share the
view that "advisory" committees should be "advisory" not decisional.  And
none of them would be classed as not accepting the underlying
multistakeholder model.  Anyone who wants to surf the list archives can find
that as can anyone who's ever read anything I've written on the topic

 

We passed that bridge a long time ago and, frankly, I am content with that.


 

My point, of course, is exactly the opposite.  That long ago we made some
decisions I (and many others) don't agree with and that if we accept a world
in which those who complain loudest at the end get to reopen settled rules,
we should reopen all the ones that were contentious .. Which is not what we
should do.

 

Thanks, for confirming CW that your arguments are merely tendentious

Paul

 

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

 
<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

 
<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=em
ail&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016> 

 

From: Christopher Wilkinson [mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu] 
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 11:50 AM
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs

 

> 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.

 

CW

 

 

 

 

On 21 Feb 2016, at 17:07, "Paul Rosenzweig"
<paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
<mailto: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

 

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

 
<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

 
<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=em
ail&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016> <image001.png>

 

From:  <mailto:epilisse at gmail.com> epilisse at gmail.com [mailto:epilisse@
<http://gmail.com> gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:01 AM
To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> >
Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors at omadhina.net <mailto: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.


el


--
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad 4 mini


On 21 Feb 2016, 02:33 +0200, Edward Morris < <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>
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
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> 
 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
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/20160221/0341b509/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2849 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160221/0341b509/image001-0001.png>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list