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

Edward Morris egmorris1 at toast.net
Sun Feb 21 19:00:39 UTC 2016

 Hi Alan,

And if that message were being sent strongly by the CCWG chartering organizations, then perhaps it is exactly what we should do.

But the official voices of those organizations are not the ones that I am largely hearing here.
 - Given that your comment here appears to be directed in part of whole towards Paul Rosenzwig (posted on top of Paul's) , as was an earlier ad hominem attack by another ALAC member, I feel compelled to respond as follows:
 Paul Rosenzweig and the Heritage Foundation are valued members of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group and of the Noncommercial Users Constituency. His and their positions on this matter are largely consistent with that posited by our CCWG Member Robin Gross and generally reflect my views and that of many, although not all, of our members. Paul's views are generally consistent with the views expressed by both the NCSG and the NCUC in our comments on the third draft proposal.
 Personally, I am deeply concerned by this groups response to the latest Board intervention. The intervention was not timely and certainly is not the type of action that lends confidence that this is an organisation of law and not of men. We seem to be straying into the 'might makes right' category of ordering our affairs. If that is my final conclusion, be assured that I personally, regardless of the content of our proposal, will lobby Congress as hard as I can to reject this transition. My members will make their own decision, but I suspect many will be  with me on this.  If we are a community of convenience rather than one of rules than any proposal from this group will not be worth the paper it is written on.
 I would like to replicate, with his permission, a post made earlier today on the GNSO Council list by Johan Helsingius, NonCom appointee to the GNSO Council. Johnan is not a member of the CCWG, nor of any SG , but will be casting a vote on all twelve recommendations when they come before the GNSO Council:

 > 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.  Isn't the board opinion simply just that - an opinion (maybe belonging in with the minority statements)?  There is of course the possibility that they invoke the magic phrase "global public interest", but that requires 2/3 majority of the board, and leads to a formal dialogue with the CCWG. Am I correct in assuming any amendments would then go back to the chartering organisations for approval one more time?  	Julf 

 There are procedures, as Johan mentions, for the Board to have input to the process. There are processes for the chartering organisations to respond. There are proper methods to deal with concerns of all Stakeholders. Dumping demands from a position of power, rather than authority, into a review period in the final 48 hours before publication of our final report is inappropriate. That the Chairs responded to this in the way they did is sad.
 Alan, as a  member of the GNSO Council proudly representing the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group, the largest and most diverse organisation in the ICANN community, I largely echo many of Paul's thoughts and do it from my position as an elected GNSO Councillor. That shouldn't matter but it appears to do so to you. In addition, if I'm not confident this organisation has a rule abiding DNA I will oppose the transition and ask the NTIA for a five year contract extension to allow ICANN additional time to mature.
 I hope that is not necessary. I hope, upon consideration, this group will take Julf's reaction, above, as a warning as to how capitulation to the Board at this moment will be viewed by the wider community and world. For me it's not the substance of their objection, it's the disregard for process and procedure their timing showed.
 Thanks, Alan, for your immense contribution to this effort. I hope we are able to come together and create, as equal stakeholders committed to proper structure and procedure, a transition and accountability plan the world can be proud of.
 Kind Regards,
 Edward Morris
 GNSO Council
 NonCommercial Stakeholders Group
 Noncommerrcioial Users Constituency


 From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 5:57 PM
To: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>, epilisse at gmail.com, "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   
"...let's just go back to the drawing board and start over shall we?"

And if that message were being sent strongly by the CCWG chartering organizations, then perhaps it is exactly what we should do.

But the official voices of those organizations are not the ones that I am largely hearing here.


At 21/02/2016 11:07 AM, Paul Rosenzweig 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 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160221/d5577983/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list