[CCWG-ACCT] SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - report after plenary 2nd reading, on 29-Mar-2017

Thu Mar 30 13:08:31 UTC 2017

farzaneh,

Since my reply through my iPhone was done quickly I owe you further
clarifications as requested.

As I mentioned the situation evolving based on prevailing circumstances and
the occurrence of events.

The Mutual Accountability that I was objection was :

a) The mandatory mutual accountability that co-chairs wanted to imposed to
the group . However, the language used in the final report of the group as
agreed with full consensus was based on some sort of optional mutual
accountability with different arrangement and if the chairs of the SOs/ACs
agreed by majority that organizing a mutual accountability discussion /
forum among the chairs of the SOs/ ACs and  few other people referred to in
the report then ICANN Staff could arrange such meeting every year during
the common public meeting. Thus there is a major difference between what
was proposed 7 months ago and what was agreed before Copenhagen.

You have therefore misunderstood the situation and rushed to misinterpreted
me .

b) It is obvious that based on the prevailing circumstances the position
could change. How many times CCWG changed its position regarding membership
type from multiple membership to single membership and from single
membership to multiple designator membership to single designator to
voluntary member ship and finally opted for designator

I hope you have now understood the case and would not interrogate the
members of the group as that is outside your mandate and remit

2017-03-30 14:52 GMT+02:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>:

> Kavouss,
>
>  I am struggling with understanding what you mean by "I feel disappointed
> that the two co- chairs warm -up you to scrutinize my statement. " you mean
> Cheryl and Steve warmed me up (encouraged?)  to scrutinize your statement?
> Remember that I am a co-rapporteur too, wrote many aspects of the document
> of soac accountability, and also may I remind you that I can have opinions
> of my own.  It  is very disappointing that you don't think that and I think
> the one person in this group that should reconsider his behavior is you
> Kavouss.
>
> You have changed your position on MAR. That's fine. But I think it was
> totally fair to ask if this was GAC opinion or your opinion which has
> changed. Which you clarified. I also think that it is fair to ask to
> provide a rationale for the shift in your position and point us to what
> situation has evolved. You don't have to answer though. I just wanted the
> group to know that you were championing a very different position
> repeatedly and  for a long time and there was a sudden shift in your
> position. It is up to you to provide a reason for such shift other than the
> vague statement that "the situation has evolved".
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Farzaneh
>> Tks
>> The situation has evolved.
>> I did not speak for GAC at that time nor do I speak now.
>> When referred to GAC it was merely indicating that I am not observer but
>> a member
>> I feel disappointed that the two co- chairs warm -up you to scrutinize my
>> statement.
>> I di not appreciate that at all.
>>  You should act  as you believe and as you think with full integrity.
>> Pls reconsider your actions and behavior
>> Best regards
>> Kavouss.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 30 Mar 2017, at 14:25, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Kavouss,
>>
>> I first recommended dropping the word "mutual" in the adobe chat.
>>
>>
>> I have a question specifically for you. Since I was not able to attend
>> the in-person meeting and I don't know what happened, I was wondering if
>> you could explain the drastic shift in your position on MAR. You were a
>> vocal advocate of not having MAR in place since the start of this group
>>  and several times called it an academic idea and that it was theoretical
>> and not practical. We have your comments on that documented.
>>
>> "Should the leaders of SO/ACs take each other into account? (Kavouss
>> disagreed with this idea )"
>> "Mr. Arasteh also thinks  it is difficult to implement the MAR and he is
>> opposed to get together of SO/AC chairs in MAR."
>>
>> In an email you sent to the soac group on 13/8/2016, you said"The whole
>> idea [MAR] is vague and unnecessary".
>>
>> Did GAC change its position on MAR? Were you not representing GAC at the
>> time and now you are representing GAC? I think it is necessary to explain
>> the shift in your position to the group, for the sake of clarification.
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <
>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All, First of all ,I would like to express my disappointment and
>>> frustrations resulted the way Cheryl and Steve both interrupted my
>>> intervention when I was describing the problem .
>>> The requires formal apology from these two respectful persons . This is
>>> not the first time they interrupt me and they have exceeded the limit.
>>> Secondly, I am happy that the term "RANK" was dropped in the part
>>> relating to "membership ""
>>> In this respect I object to the statement made by Cheryl when she said
>>> "MEMBERSHIP RANK "in her English language is equivalent to "MEMBERSHIP
>>> COLLECTIVELY "This was not a true statement as ono one seems to teaching
>>> anyone else linguistic terms.
>>> I interpreted her as saying my knowledge in English is poor and
>>> insufficient as I did not know the meaning of"MEMBERSHIP RANK ".This
>>> statement that she publicly made when replied to me is formally contested .
>>> This kind of underestimating the ability and competence of others
>>> requires formal appolgy, .
>>> Thirdly, I had to leave the call due to medical check up and understand
>>> that Steve proposed to delete the term "MUTUAL"in the term "Mutual
>>> Accountability" As a formal Member from CCWG appointed by GAC , I strongly
>>> object to such deletion.
>>> Pls be careful that there must be consensus on any action being taken
>>> Regards
>>> Kavouss
>>>
>>> 2017-03-30 7:19 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I agree on the process point in Avri's mail as i think it will have
>>>> been good for the SO/AC accountability leads to get back to the sub-group
>>>> on this. I personally have not been consistent with subgroups meetings
>>>> lately hence i may not have full glimpse of what gave the leads the
>>>> confidence to update subgroup documents on the fly, i guess it could be
>>>> that they've checked the temperature of the subgroup on such hypothesis in
>>>> the past. Nevertheless, the leads sure will be in the best position to do
>>>> the needful (i note though that the subgroup was copied in Steve's mail).
>>>>
>>>> That said, I for one would have loved to see the "mutual" maintained
>>>> but owning to realities on ground at it concerns SO/AC relationships i have
>>>> my doubts. Recent events especially those related to the Atlarge review and
>>>> considering how some SO/AC members/leaders reacted to it, further confirms
>>>> my doubt on whether this community is matured enough to have such level of
>>>> cross accountability. Besides, it's "somewhat" impractical for some groups
>>>> like the ASO whose accountability is largely to/from the RIR community. The
>>>> extent of checking SSAC's accountability who largely operates closed (for
>>>> good reasons) is also one of the reasons why mutual may be ineffective or
>>>> at best become one sided.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> On 29 Mar 2017 4:01 p.m., "avri doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I find this way of explaining it unfortunately.
>>>>>
>>>>> The subgroup sent a paper with the word 'Mutual' in.  For the subgroup
>>>>> leaders to now indicate that this was just the whimsy of a minority of
>>>>> the plenary when that had been the recommendation of the subgroup seems
>>>>> backwards.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe that the plenary group chairs played fast and loose with the
>>>>> process by changing the work of the subteam on the fly instead of
>>>>> sending it back to the subteam.  It should have either approved the
>>>>> second reading or sent it back for further work.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> avri
>>>>>
>>>>>  I'm late / I'm late / For a very important date. / No time to say
>>>>> "Hello, Goodbye". / I'm late, I'm late, I'm late.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 29-Mar-17 10:40, Steve DelBianco wrote:
>>>>> > Per the decision reached on today’s plenary call, here is the SOAC
>>>>> > Accountability Report as approved for Public Comment.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The 2 minor edits to the previous draft are:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     remove the word “ranks” on page 7.
>>>>> >     remove the word “mutual” on page 32.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The call for Public Comment could indicate this explanation and seek
>>>>> > community input:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     A minority of CCWG members prefer that the optional annual
>>>>> >     Accountability Roundtable discussion described on page 32 be
>>>>> >     expanded to include “mutual” accountability, where each SO/AC is
>>>>> >     held accountable to the other SO/ACs.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org
>>>>> > <mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>
>>>>> > Date: Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 3:01 PM
>>>>> > To: Accountability Cross Community
>>>>> > <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>>>> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>>>>> > Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com
>>>>> > <mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>>, farzaneh badii
>>>>> > <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>,
>>>>> > "ws2-so_ac at icann.org <mailto:ws2-so_ac at icann.org>"
>>>>> > <ws2-so_ac at icann.org <mailto:ws2-so_ac at icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff
>>>>> > <acct-staff at icann.org <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>, Bernard
>>>>> Turcotte
>>>>> > <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>>
>>>>> > Subject: SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - report for plenary
>>>>> > 2nd reading, on 29-Mar-2017
>>>>> >
>>>>> > To our CCWG colleagues:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Attached, for your consideration, is the report of the SOAC
>>>>> > Accountability group of Work Stream 2, revised per comments at our
>>>>> > first reading at the 10-Mar plenary in Copenhagen.  Including:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     Clarify we are looking only at activities within ICANN, so we are
>>>>> >     not looking at NRO and IETF outside of ICANN.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     For best practices instead of saying”should consider”, we say
>>>>> >     "should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable
>>>>> >     and an improvement…”
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     Suggest that future ATRTs may examine the extent to which best
>>>>> >     practices have been implemented.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     Recommend an optional mutual accountability roundtable at annual
>>>>> >     general meetings, at the option of SO/AC chairs.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     Add 5 examples of reasons to close a meeting to public
>>>>> observation
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     Make best practices more consistent regarding meeting notes and
>>>>> >     minutes
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     Add the dimension of diversity to outreach best practices.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > We have also attached a redline from version 1.0 to version 1.1
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Our group looks forward to your questions and comments during 2nd
>>>>> > reading on 29-Mar.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Regards,
>>>>> > Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii
>>>>> > Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20170330/39202aa5/attachment-0001.html>