[Internal-cg] CCWG Accountability
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Dec 12 23:49:04 UTC 2014
Thank you very much for your message.
I will participate in CCWG ,for the time being and until the GAC chair
make different rarrangements, as A PARTICIPANT. When I intervene, I make it
clear that I am speaking on that capacity, should I need to intervene as
ICG,as I made once, indicating that the deadline for Workstream 1 should
meet and match with time lines that ICG established.
What I can inform you now as ICG Liaison is that the course of action being
taken does not correspond to the expectation of the overall accountabilty
and there is insufficient coordination between CWG and CCWG workstream 1.
Infact what ICG awaiting on accountability for its current activities ON
NAMES should be fed from CWG and not CCWG.
tHE Scope of activities of CCWG on accountabilty is currently norrowed down
to collection of information from the past expereince and not addressing
the fundamental issue of accountability ,if and only if, NTIA transfers
the stewardship of IANA functions to Global Multistakeholder which would
certainly bedifferent from the existing structure and mechanism of ICANN .
We should all remember that currently ICANN is accountable to NTIA.To which
entity ICANN would be accountable after transition, it is not yet clear.
Certainly ,ICANN would not be accountable to ICANN .tHERE MUST BE A
WORKABLE MECHANISM to which ICANN would be accountable .This is a fact and
By the way, I was not voluteer to be Liason at CCWG, i WAS VOLUNTEERED FOR
cwg, YOU ASKED ME TO WITHDRAW FROM CWG and I respected your request
2014-12-12 21:26 GMT+01:00 Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>:
> I would also add that Kavouss, like anyone, can participate actively in
> the Enhancing ICANN Accountability CCWG as an individual participant. I
> will be doing the same thing. I am not the official "appointed member" from
> the Registries Stakeholder Group (GNSO) but I will still be very active on
> behalf of Verisign, my employer. Similarly, Kavouss can participate
> actively on behalf of the Government of Iran or in his individual capacity.
> There is no restriction to anyone's active participation. Hope that helps!
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 12, 2014, at 2:45 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> Hi Kavouss,
> As I mentioned to you off-list, I think it’s fine if you want to
> participate in the CCWG-Accountability as both a GAC representative and ICG
> liaison, as long as (i) you confirm that the GAC wants you to serve as its
> representative, which is a decision that needs to be made among you and the
> other GAC members, without involvement from the ICG, and (ii) you make it
> clear to all CCWG participants that all of your contributions are on behalf
> of the GAC unless you explicitly state that you are providing information
> from the ICG. The ICG has no role in decisions of the GAC about the GAC’s
> representation in the CCWG.
> As the ICG discussed in Los Angeles, (see pages 50-60 of our meeting
> http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/fri-icg/transcript-icg-17oct14-en.pdf )
> the ICG wanted to make sure that we had people who could send information
> back and forth between our group and the CCWG. As summarized in the
> transcript, "Anything you think is important, let us know. Anything that we
> think is important, we'll let you know." The structure of the CCWG had not
> been formulated at the time when you agreed to liaise, but I think we had
> good agreement within the ICG nonetheless that the liaison role there on
> our behalf would be to share information back and forth, and not to
> specifically represent the ICG or vote on our behalf.
> If you would prefer, we can see if we can find a different ICG liaison
> or rely solely on Keith Drazek for now if you think serving as the liaison
> will interfere with your ability to participate in the CCWG.
> On Dec 12, 2014, at 3:32 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> Dear All,
> I wish to inform you that on the unfounded bureaucratic ground ,people
> wishes to avoid or prevent receiving any comments from me on the most
> crucial and most fundamental issue of ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY CCWG .
> However, I continue to comments and do in no way accept that because I am
> not the member of that group ( not included in the Thomas Schneider letter
> to the chair of that group my sincere volunteer to fully and actively
> participate as GAC member from Asia Pacific which is the most largest
> ICANN geographical region with more <http:/>than 75 countries or
> geographical dependent territories , my volunteer was rejected by the chair
> and the crew ).
> This is not fair nor acceptable
> I have asked to be the member of that Group from July 2014 in multiple
> communications to the former GAC Chsair and the Secretary.
> We need to encourage those who wish to contribute and not put an obstacle
> in using purely bureaucratic element that participants or Lisison can not
> actively contribute
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg