re: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs
Hi James, I'm happy to defer to your judgement as to how to handle this. A or B: your call. ?I do think it may be appropriate to let the CCWG know that their continued delay may make it impossible for us to give them a response by their deadline. Although I hope that repurposing some of our sessions, or even adding some, will allow us to satisfy the working group, a soft reminder that we charter them and not the other way around might help prevent further delay. For those who haven't been following the CCWG closely: welcome. I did receive a few private messages telling me that my concern over voting on a moving target was unwarranted as the report would soon be final. I wish events had proven me wrong. Nothing ever seems to be final in the CCWG. Once things seem to be agreed you just sit and wait for the next disruptive bomb to go off. Sad. Thanks James. Best, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 4:00 AM To: "Phil Corwin" <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council List" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Thanks, Phil. I'll put that down as support for option (a) Proceed with the meeting, and waive the document deadline for the CCWG. Basically, we will consider the report whenever it arrives, so long as it's before the call. Thanks- J. From: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 21:08 To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs James: As stated in my own email to the Council list, this delays release of the Final Report until at least next Wednesday at the earliest. If it is delivered sometime next week I think that argues even more strongly for a February 29th call, to initiate our review as well as discuss the feasibility of the timeline for final GNSO action by March 9th. If it is not released until after 2/26 I think we will need to seriously discuss the timeline. These are my personal views as I have not yet consulted with the BC on this unexpected development. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 9:23 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Colleagues - Please see below. The CCWG will not publish today, which is the document cut-off for our Special Session on 29 FEB. I'm open to proposals that we either (a) waive the document cut off for this document, and proceed with the Special Session, or (b) cancel the Special Session. I tend to favor the first approach, but will defer to the sentiment of the group on this. Any thoughts from the Council on this? On our call Thursday we noted that we would not want our first exposure to the CCWG Report was in Marrakesh. Today's development makes this scenario more likely. In response, I think we should prepare to repurpose additional sessions (potentially Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday) in Morocco for this work. But we will have a clearer picture next week. Stay tuned. Thanks- J. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxx> on behalf of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 18:19 To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff@xxxxxxxxx)" <acct-staff@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs Dear all, As you are aware, we intended to publish our Final Report today (19 February 2016) for Chartering Organization consideration. We are ready to do so, except for one issue where we would like to consider options as a full group. There is, still, ongoing discussion on the issue of thresholds for Board removal in Recommendation #2, which raised concerns in our report after we came to a compromise on Board consideration of GAC Advice (Recommendation #11). Since then, we have tried to propose compromise text that would be acceptable by different groups (c.f. the 12 February and 17 February drafts, posted at https://community.icann.org/x/iw2AAw). We received comments on this issue, and in some cases, minority statements, from members and participants in the ALAC, GAC, GNSO, and the Board. Earlier today, ICANN Chairman, Steve Crocker, posted a note, apparently on behalf of the Icann Board, outlining Board concerns with the latest attempt at compromise text proposed on 17 February: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-February/011056.html. While these last minute interventions are deeply disappointing for those of us who worked extremely hard, within the group and within their respective communities, to build bridges and promote compromise, our main target and duty remains to achieve a stable level of consensus, respecting the bottom-up, multistakeholder nature of the process. 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. We believe this issue must be discussed before sending our Final Report to Chartering Organizations. At the very least, we would like the opportunity to discuss a way forward and process as full group on next Tuesday's CCWG-Accountability call at 06:00 UTC. There are many options and directions the group can take at this stage, each with different implications and considerations, and these options should be discussed as a group. Until the Tuesday call, let's keep open channels of communication on our mailing list and work towards a solution. We will also reach out to the Chartering Organizations to inform them of the change in our schedule. As co-chairs, we renew our call upon every Member, upon every Participant, our call upon community leaders especially in the ICANN Board, in the GNSO and in the GAC to step away from confronting each other, to engage constructively and recognize each other's value to the multistakeholder model. If you believe that the multistakeholder model can deliver, now is the time to act accordingly. Thank you, Thomas, León, Mathieu CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs ---------------------------------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16 Attachment:
Attachment 1
|