[CCWG-ACCT] Confusion and my position

Jordan Carter jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Tue Feb 23 16:28:49 UTC 2016


It doesn't matter.

This has developed into a bizarre waving of sticks between several groups.

As I said on the call, if the CCWG is going to be the group that chose to
stand up and walk away from a fight that didn't need to be had, then that
reflects well on the group.

It is not about winning, it is not about power tripping.. this simply is
not an important enough issue to be treated to such tension-building
language in my opinion.

I look forward to us moving on, getting this report out, getting CO
agreement, and getting on with implementation. I know I'm not the only one.

cheers
Jordan

On 24 February 2016 at 05:19, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
wrote:

> Has the Board actually said that it would refuse to send the proposal to
> NTIA if they do not have their way here?
>
>
>
> If so, I would appreciate an explicit statement to that effect. It would
> be a direct violation of several assurances to NTIA and Congress that the
> Board would forward the proposal even if it did not agree with the entirety
> of the content.
>
>
>
> In this case, the Board has said that it agrees with the entire product
> but this one “corner” issue that, as you say, “that is so remote that I am
> extremely reluctant to have our work founder on this theoretical rock.” So
> I guess your belief is that the Board is willing to run the proposal into
> the rocks over this theoretical case?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Brett Schaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security
> and Foreign Policy
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org
>
> *From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 11:11 AM
> *To:* Schaefer, Brett; Roelof Meijer; el at lisse.na;
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: Confusion and my position
>
>
>
> Ok, I’ll give you that.  But again, should we play chicken with the Board?
>
>
>
>
>
> *J. Beckwith Burr*
> *Neustar, Inc.* / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
> *Office:* +1.202.533.2932  *Mobile:* +1.202.352.6367 */* *neustar.biz*
> <http://www.neustar.biz>
>
>
>
> *From: *<Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
> *Date: *Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:07 AM
> *To: *Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>, Roelof Meijer <
> Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>, Eberhard Lisse <el at lisse.na>, Accountability
> Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject: *RE: Confusion and my position
>
>
>
> Thank you Becky, although if it is so remote, one wonders why the Board is
> so insistent about it.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *BrettSchaefer*
>
> * Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security
> and Foreign Policy*
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=uXE53z8gY0q2klrd9OgBbMuB1UD00r1SCMPinTfQ7Ik&s=4VbUbqoY3fX0lDteIq9l2H7T4O_rtNSd6dJmx2lh1LI&e=>
>
> *From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
> <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:56 AM
> *To:* Schaefer, Brett; Roelof Meijer; el at lisse.na;
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Confusion and my position
> *Importance:* High
>
>
>
> People are very confused about timing and facts here.  The entire
> paragraph that contains (1) and (2) was put in at roughly the same time
> (Feb 15/16), based on the same discussions.
>
>
>
> The last stable consensus we had prior to that was the top of paragraph
> 72, which reads something like:  *The CCWG-Accountability also recommends
> that in a situation where the GAC may not participate as a Decisional
> Participant because the Community Power is proposed to be used to challenge
> the Board’s implementation of GAC consensus advice and the threshold is set
> at four in support, the power will still be validly exercised if three are
> in support and no more than one objects.  *
>
>
>
> The “with one exception” and language that follows was put in in response
> to the Board intervention of 13 February.
>
>
>
> I have very mixed feelings about this.  Personally, I feel that the folks
> opposing removal of (2) have the more principled argument, looking across
> the entire history of this process, the special status of GAC Advice, and
> considering the change from single member to sole designator, and the
> increased importance of Board spill that results.  That said, I also feel
> that an IRP will always be a better option for dealing with a single issue,
> that pattern and practice violations that lead to a loss of confidence will
> not arise in the context of GAC Advice exclusively, and so the removal of
> phrase (2) creates a corner case that is so remote that I am extremely
> reluctant to have our work founder on this theoretical rock.
>
>
>
>
>
> *J. Beckwith Burr*
> *Neustar, Inc.*/Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
> *Office:*+1.202.533.2932  *Mobile:*+1.202.352.6367 */**neustar.biz*
> <http://www.neustar.biz>
>
>
>
> *From: *<Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
> *Date: *Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 9:04 AM
> *To: *Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>, Eberhard Lisse <el at lisse.na>,
> Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
>
>
>
> Roelof,
>
>
>
> Of course, the opposite could apply just as easily. We had consensus on
> the issue until the Board intervention – after that part of the comment
> period was closed – and we do not have a consensus to remove that language
> as requested by the Board.
>
>
>
> My read from the comments on the e-mail and the chat  is that some,
> perhaps much, of the support for removing the language is based not on the
> merits of the Board’s argument (since they really made no substantive
> argument), but on the desire to conclude this process as quickly as
> possible and the fear denying the Board would extend this debate.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Brett
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *BrettSchaefer*
>
> * Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security
> and Foreign Policy*
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Bbsi3QkzKA6WkpR1W3ZZjSVu6e0kEUoVGSTuuXvqL_g&s=xbWdw4c_YLXRicVYdzrTTuIA4MHjOgVBvz1MQJ3FO6U&e=>
>
> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Roelof
> Meijer
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:49 AM
> *To:* el at lisse.na; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
>
>
>
> Where it leaves us, I think is clear. We just follow our common practice:
> if we have no (rough) consensus on inserting a particular clause or
> solution in our proposal, we do not put it in. Item (2) was inserted a few
> weeks ago, we do not have anything close to rough consensus to support
> that. So it should be taken out.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Roelof
>
>
>
>
> On 23-02-16 12:39, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
> behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org%20on%0bbehalf%20of%20Dr%20Eberhard%20W%20Lisse>
> "
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
> el at lisse.na
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%0bel at lisse.na>>
> wrote:
>
> >Grace,
> >
> >thank you.
> >
> >Dear Co-Chairs,
> >
> >As mentioned in the chat I had to leave after one hour (of which 22
> >were taken by a summary, for which I expected an Executive Summary of
> >2 minutes or less, by the way) as I have to work for a living.
> >
> >Just for the record, sending it to the SOs is not the same as
> >supporting it, hence your careful language reflects my proxy with the
> >exception of Poll 4 where he only polled as participant but should
> >have also polled my member proxy in favor of submitting as is.
> >
> >That said, it is disturbing that 11 Board members and even staff
> >participated in the poll.
> >
> >Never mind the expected outcome from the ACs.
> >
> >It is however clear that we do NOT have Consensus as required by our
> >Charter.
> >
> >So, where does this leave us?
> >
> >el
> >
> >
> >On 2016-02-23 12:26, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> To ensure full transparency around the polling, the staff have
> >> reviewed the recording for the call and crosschecked the results.
> >> The Adobe Connect recording is available here for your viewing as
> >> well: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2ner13u4kd/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.adobeconnect.com_p2ner13u4kd_&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Bbsi3QkzKA6WkpR1W3ZZjSVu6e0kEUoVGSTuuXvqL_g&s=sEgc4DrNBkeAL49eyykm8SqmM6iTeywKYd8TycxiUY8&e=>
> .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Please note that the instructions regarding participation in the polls
> >> were as follows:
> >>
> >> · Anyone on the call was invited to participate in the poll
> >> (members & participants).
> >>
> >> · To participate, participants in the Adobe Connect room used
> >> either a red or green tick to respond to the poll question.
> >>
> >> · Those on audio-only could express their position over the phone.
> >>
> >> · After the polls, analysis would be conducted to assess
> >> participation from CCWG members (for the purposes of these results, the
> >> members¹ names are in bold font).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The Chairs conducted four polls in a group that varied between 85-90
> >> participants. The text used as the basis for the polls is Paragraph
> >> 72 of the CCWG report (see attached slide for the text as well as
> >> the 2^nd bullet highlighted in red). The first two poll questions
> >> were based on objections and the second two poll questions were
> >> based on expressions of support.
> >>
> >>
> >> *Summary of results: *
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> · 11 objections to removing the 2^nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in red
> >> on the slide)
> >>
> >> o (2 CCWG member objections)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> · 27 objections to sending the report forward as it is currently,
> >> with the full text in Paragraph 72
> >>
> >> o (8 CCWG member objections, including all ALAC members)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> · 36 support removing the language in the 2^nd bullet in Paragraph
> >> 72 (in red on the slide)
> >>
> >> o (10 CCWG members supporting)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> · 14 support sending the report forward as it is currently, with
> >> the full text in Paragraph 72
> >>
> >> o (2 CCWG members supporting)
> >>
> >>
> >> *Detailed results: *
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *Poll #1*­ Who objects to removing the 2^nd bullet in Paragraph 72 (in
> >> red on the slide), (³If the IRP is not available to challenge the Board
> >> action in question²)?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. Brett Schaefer (NCSG ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 2. Edward Morris (NCSG ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 3. Farzaneh Badii (NCSG ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 4. James Gannon (NCSG ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 5. Malcolm Hutty (ISPCP ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 6. Milton Mueller (NCSG ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 7. Paul Rosenzweig (NCSG ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 8. *Robin Gross*(NCSG ­ Member)
> >>
> >> 9. Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 10.Tatiana Tropina (NCSG ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 11.*Eberhard Lisse*(ccNSO ­ Member)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *Poll #2*­ Who objects to sending the report forward (to Chartering
> >> Organizations) as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with
> >> the full text in Paragraph 72)?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. *Alan Greenberg*(ALAC ­ Member)
> >>
> >> 2. Asha Hemrajani (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 3. Cherine Chalaby (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 4. *Cheryl Langdon-Orr*(ALAC ­ Member)
> >>
> >> 5. Chris Disspain (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 6. David McAuley (GNSO ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 7. Fadi Chehade (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 8. George Sadowsky (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 9. Jorge Cancio (GAC ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 10.*Julia Wolman*(GAC ­ Member)
> >>
> >> 11.Keith Drazek (RySG ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 12.*Leon Sanchez*(ALAC ­ Member)
> >>
> >> 13.Lito Ibarra (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 14.Louisewies Van del Laan (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 15.Markus Kummer (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 16.*Olga Cavalli*(GAC ­ Member)
> >>
> >> 17.Olivier Crepin-Leblond (ALAC ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 18.Pedro da Silva (GAC ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 19.Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 20.Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 21.*Roelof Meijer*(ccNSO ­ Member)
> >>
> >> 22.Ron da Silva (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 23.Samantha Eisner (ICANN Staff Liaison)
> >>
> >> 24.Seun Ojedeji (ALAC ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 25.Steve Crocker (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 26.*Sebastien Bachollet*(ALAC ­ Member)
> >>
> >> 27.Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 28.Tarek Kamel (ICANN Staff ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 29.*Tijani Ben Jemaa*(ALAC ­ Member)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *Poll #3*­ Who supports removing the language in the 2^nd bullet in
> >> Paragraph 72 (in red on the slide), (³If the IRP is not available to
> >> challenge the Board action in question²)?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. *Alan**Greenberg* (ALAC ­ Member)
> >>
> >> 2. Annaliese Williams (GAC ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 3. Asha Hemrajani (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 4. Avri Doria (NCSG ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 5. Cherine Chalaby (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 6. *Cheryl Langdon-Orr*(ALAC ­ Member)
> >>
> >> 7. Chris Disspain (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 8. David McAuley (GNSO ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 9. Fadi Chehade (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 10.Finn Petersen (GAC ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 11.George Sadowsky (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 12.Greg Shatan (IPC ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 13.*James Bladel*(RrSG ­ Member)
> >>
> >> 14.*Julia**Wolman* (GAC ­ Member)
> >>
> >> 15.Kavouss Arasteh (GAC ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 16.Keith Drazek (RySG ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 17.*Leon**Sanchez* (ALAC ­ Member)
> >>
> >> 18.Lito Ibarra (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 19.Louisewies Van del Laan (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 20.Mark Carvell (GAC ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 21.Markus Kummer (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 22.Mary Uduma (ccNSO ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 23.Niels Ten Oever (Participant)
> >>
> >> 30.*Olga**Cavalli* (GAC ­ Member)
> >>
> >> 24.Olivier Crepin-Leblond (ALAC ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 25.Paul Szyndler (ccNSO ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 26.Pedro da Silva (GAC ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 31.Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 27.Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 28.*Roelof**Meijer* (ccNSO ­ Member)
> >>
> >> 29.Ron da Silva (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 30.Sabine Meyer (GAC ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 31.Seun Ojedeji (ALAC ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 32.Steve Crocker (ICANN Board ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 33.*Steve DelBianco*(CSG ­ Member)
> >>
> >> 34.*Sebastien**Bachollet* (ALAC ­ Member)
> >>
> >> 35.Tarek Kamel (ICANN Staff)
> >>
> >> 36.*Tijani**Ben Jemaa* (ALAC ­ Member)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *Poll #4*­ Who supports sending the report to Chartering Organizations
> >> as it is currently, (i.e. the 19 February version with the full text in
> >> Paragraph 72)?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. Aarti Bhavana (NCSG ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 2. Brett Schaefer (NCSG ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 3. Edward Morris (NCSG ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 4. Farzaneh Badii (NCSG ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 5. James Gannon (NCSG ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 6. *Jordan Carter*(ccNSO ­ Member)
> >>
> >> 7. Martin Boyle (ccNSO ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 8. Matthew Shears (NCSG ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 9. Malcolm Hutty (ISPCP ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 10.Milton Mueller (NCSG ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 11.Paul Rosenzweig (NCSG ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 12.*Robin**Gross* (NCSG ­ Member)
> >>
> >> 13.Stephen Deerhake (ccNSO ­ Participant)
> >>
> >> 14.Tatiana Tropina (NCSG ­ Participant)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Bbsi3QkzKA6WkpR1W3ZZjSVu6e0kEUoVGSTuuXvqL_g&s=RnhEuBs33sgY9SZq2AffeXFMitJbFj_y7G-VtCzQxdI&e=>
> >>
> >
> >--
> >Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
> >el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
> >PO Box 8421 \ /
> >Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
> >_______________________________________________
> >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Bbsi3QkzKA6WkpR1W3ZZjSVu6e0kEUoVGSTuuXvqL_g&s=RnhEuBs33sgY9SZq2AffeXFMitJbFj_y7G-VtCzQxdI&e=>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Bbsi3QkzKA6WkpR1W3ZZjSVu6e0kEUoVGSTuuXvqL_g&s=RnhEuBs33sgY9SZq2AffeXFMitJbFj_y7G-VtCzQxdI&e=>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>


-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ - your voice for the Open Internet*

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter
Web: www.internetnz.nz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160224/f188cd05/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list