I think that the language of the letter is very soft but it's a high
level (all SOs) letter so ... . Best would be to have a letter that
said: "Fadi this is a nice try for a bad precedent and we are not
falling for it. You can bet your ass we are not yet in alignment".
However, we have to contend with his agenda setting powers and it seems
to me that if we can have a harsher cross-SO "not yet in alignment"
letter, than we should strive to get it. A letter that would counter the
things you guys said he probably would stand to gain (namely: 1)
shifting blame for delay/putting pressure; 2) creating precedents of
top-down circumventions) would be optimal. Barring the success of this,
a
"we-have-received-your-flowers-thank-you-very-much-but-sadly-we-could-not-yet-determine-that-we-all-like-their-beautiful-colors-yet"
letter is in order I guess.
Nicolas
On 08/08/2014 10:56 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
> If snarkiness is a quality that causes others to think, that term may
> apply to Avri because that’s what she’s done here to me. She’s right –
> this is just bad precedent.
> Look, I know Mr. Chehade is trying to create sense of urgency, a sense
> of crisis that we’re all supposed to respond to by getting in
> alignment with whatever he proposes. Accountability and transparency
> are perhaps the two most vital issues facing ICANN today. As a
> Stakeholder Group we’ve been yelling about them for years. We were
> largely ignored. Now is not the time to rush to action just because
> the folks who were ignoring us suddenly have a self imposed timetable
> to meet. These are important issues and the structures for resolving
> them need to be carefully considered.
> I should also note that if alignment means supporting the staff
> created proposal I’d rather be unaligned. We have sufficient input on
> this list suggesting the proposal is not the way forward. Signing the
> note may, amongst other things, send the wrong message to Mr. Chehade
> about where we as a stakeholder group are currently at.
> Thanks for all of your hard work on this Bill but I don’t believe this
> is a note we should sign on to at the current time.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 10:05:45 -0400
> Subject: Re: Fairly Urgent: Possible Joint Statement on Accountability
> 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]
> <mailto:avri%40ACM.ORG>> 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>
> <http://www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>>
> >>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:william.drake%40uzh.ch>
> >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:william.drake%40uzh.ch>>
> (direct), [log in to unmask] <mailto:wjdrake%40gmail.com>
> >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:wjdrake%40gmail.com>> (lists),
> >>> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> >>> ***********************************************
> >>>
> >
> >
>
|
