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>
>>> ***********************************************
>>>
>
>