jjs at dyalog.net
Mon May 4 09:57:41 UTC 2015
I agree with you, and sorry that was not clear in my response: our Chair would of course write on behalf of the ICG as a whole.
My message was to insist that she send the message to the Chair of the ICANN Board, who would of course share it with the full Board (as a former member of the ICANN Board, I can guarantee this would be the case). There would be no point of sending such a message to some VP, or even the CEO, as fiduciary duty lies with the members of the Board.
----- Mail original -----
De: "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Lundi 4 Mai 2015 10:45:29
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting
I think it needs to be addressed to the Board as a whole and sent to or
to the attention of the chair, but I think the response needs to clearly
be the position of the overall Board, as expressed by the Chair perhaps,
but not just a view or interpretation of the individual addressee...
On 5/4/2015 4:36 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
> In response to Alissa's latest draft, I suggest we be attentive to the following:
> - yes, our role should limit itself to calling for transparency, etc.
> - If Alissa, as our Chair, is to send any message, it must be ONLY to the Chair of the ICANN Board, with copies to whoever else might be interested (ICANN CEO, CWG Chair or whatever). It cannot be our Chair's business to be corresponding with an employee of ICANN, even it that is the CEO. By addressing the Chair of the Board, it makes clear that we expect an answer (a commitment?) which would then speak on behalf of those who hold fiduciary duty within ICANN. To be understood and respected, we must abide by "parallel forms", that is Chair to Chair.
> Best regards,
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
> À: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Envoyé: Lundi 4 Mai 2015 09:36:09
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting
> I think this is good, but might reverse the order. 1st provide the
> statement reminding ICANN of the ICG's established requirements of
> transparency [Dear Board, We are writing further to our requirements of
> transparency set forth in the paragraph below] and then ask for a
> clarification on their position in relation to it. I can live with it
> either way.
> On 5/4/2015 12:55 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> There have been a lot of emails circulating about this topic, not only on our list but also on the lists associated with CRISP, IANAPLAN, the CWG, and the CCWG. I think as a group we may be able to help sort things out, but we need to collectively find the best path forward.
>> There seem to be roughly three schools of thought on this within the ICG:
>> (1) We should say nothing as a group, or I as chair should forward queries to ICANN if we receive them from any operational community.
>> (2) We should query the ICANN board and/or staff about reports we’ve seen concerning recent negotiations, seek clarification, and re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes.
>> (3) We should re-iterate our position about transparent, community-led processes without direct reference to reports about recent negotiations.
>> Concerning (1), although we have not received specific messages from operational communities to forward, ICG members from across all of the OCs have stated their support for us to take some action, either in the form of (2) or (3), which seems like a fairly strong endorsement.
>> (2) and (3) are at odds with each other, however, since the former would require acknowledging recent reports and specifically asking about them, and the latter would require us to avoid referencing those same reports.
>> My suggestion for a middle ground is for us to issue a neutral statement that re-iterates our position (a la (3)) and then forward that statement to the ICANN board and staff with a further query. I’ve taken a shot at drafting both of those pieces below. I’ve edited the statement to try to make it more neutral. Feedback is of course welcome.
>> As for mechanics, we could liaise this to the board via Kuo. I very much appreciate the messages he has already sent as well as the notes Bruce has sent on other lists, but I think it might be helpful to get one consolidated statement from the board on this topic.
>> It’s less obvious to whom we should address a note to ICANN staff (liaising via Elise is a possibility, but perhaps not ideal), or whether we should send one note and request responses from both the board and staff. I understood Bruce to be saying that the board is not necessarily involved in these discussions with the staff, so separate notes may be better.
>> Proposed statement and note:
>> Dear <insert appropriate ICANN recipient(s) here>,
>> The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement below. Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public.
>> The ICG
>> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements
>> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible.
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
More information about the Internal-cg