Hi,

I don't accusing of bad intent (snarkiness) is appropriate just because
someone disagrees.  My questions where quite sincere and based on recent
experience.  And I have read the transcript.

I think this is  bad idea and I think it sets a precedent for this new
way of working that circumvents established bottom-up processes.  Fadi
keeps doing it, and we keep falling right into line.

I would have preferred for Jonathan, who I assume was also at the
meeting to have brought the issue to the council, and for the council to
have said stop, wait and listen.

I think that this letter just sets him up to say, ok, now the delay of
game is on you guys.

avri

On 08-Aug-14 09:51, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Avri
> 
> On Aug 8, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> I do not understand the need for it and what it achieves.
>>
>> Are we talking about the plan that have not been rolled out for review
>> yet?  How can we be asking for more time on something they have not
>> asked us to review yet.
> 
> But we are reviewing it, I sent the material yesterday
>>
>> As I understand it they gave the Leaders a peek, and some of you passed
>> that peek on.  I am not sure what else is going on.  Are they waiting
>> for reviews?  Will they honor reviews?  Or is really a done deal that
>> are 'agree or left behind deals'? Will we just be adding yet another
>> comment to be ignored - we can see the effect the previous letter had.
>>
>> I also think it is heartwarming that all you leaders have found such
>> kumbaya among yourselves for rapid creation of letters the rest of us
>> barely have time to approve.  I would prefer to see a Council channel
>> used for these sorts of things.
>>
>> i am not in favor of the note.
>>
> 
> Don’t understand the need for the snarkiness, but have a look at the meeting transcript.  Fadi wants to formally release this quickly and start building the Community Coordination Group and Assembly so they can meet before LA.  He urged all the SOs and AC chairs to move into alignment and support the proposal, but added that "If we received from you enough input that says give us another week so we can do a little bit more thinking together, by all means.”  So Tony’s proposal was to say we need more time as we are not yet in alignment.  I think his idea was to see if GNSO SG/C’s were in agreement on that and then reach out to other SO ACs.  That doesn’t make it a Council issue, but if it offends you I suppose we can suggest he change the language and reach out to other SO ACs now rather than later.  Either way, the idea was to give the community time to consider the thing.
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
>>
>>
>> On 08-Aug-14 04:42, William Drake wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Further to the discussion about staff’s proposed accountability
>>> mechanism, SG/constituency chairs have been discussing a possible joint
>>> statement. As agreeing on details regarding specific concerns might take
>>> some cycles and Fadi’s asked us to move quickly into alignment, Tony
>>> Holmes of the ISPCP has circulated this place holder for collective
>>> endorsement and rapid transmission.  Would people be amenable to NCSG
>>> signing onto this for now, with more to come?  Bill
>>>
>>> /During ICANN meeting 50 the entire GNSO community came together to make
>>> a statement calling for the Board to support community creation of an
>>> independent accountability mechanism. That action clearly indicates the
>>> importance of this issue to the community and its constituent groups.
>>> Since then we have closely followed this issue and are now
>>> considering //ICANN’s proposal for managing the accountability process.
>>> However at this stage it would be both prudent and timely to advise you
>>> that currently there is no alignment within the GNSO community on the
>>> proposed approach or process proposed by ICANN. Discussions are on-going
>>> and it is our intention to offer a more detailed statement of our
>>> concerns as early as possible next week./
>>> /
>>> /
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> ***********************************************
>>> William J. Drake
>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>>  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>>  University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>>>  ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (direct), [log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (lists),
>>>  www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
>>> ***********************************************
>>>
> 
>