Greg
Interesting post.
Two observations.
1. We should not be rebuilding the flaps in-flight.
2. We need to allow the SOs to have the benefit of the general public's input in its deliberations. It is wrong to say 'here's the proposal' without allowing us to read the reactions to it. There may be (no I say WILL be) intelligent and useful comment that will inform the debate within the SO.
On 12/03/2015 04:09 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Bringing this thread back to its topic....
We are in the midst of a situation that is essentially an experiment --
a simultaneous Public Comment period and [first?] Chartering
Organization review/support period. Unfortunately, we have some
unspecified parameters, which is probably not good experimental design
(unless this is really a social experiment).
In particular, the relationships among (i) the Chartering Organization
review, (ii) the public comments generally, and (iii) possible public
comments from members and sub-organizations of the Chartering
Organizations are unspecified.
Indeed, the possibility (or not) of public comments from
members/sub-organizations of Chartering Organizations was not fully
resolved.
Focusing on this last point, there is more than one reasonable answer:
1. Public comments are completely open, and everybody participates as
normal, including members and suborganizations of Chartering
Organizations (COs).
2. As above, but comments from members and suborganizations of COs are
significantly discounted, as their primary path for input should be
their CO.
3. Public comments are not open to members or suborganizations of COs;
their input is limited to the process within their CO.
Whichever route we choose, we should be consistent, rather than just
letting things happen. To take an example within GNSO, what if (a)
Stakeholder Group/Constituency (SG/C) A decides it is inappropriate for
the SG/C or its members to participate in public comment and guides all
input through the GNSO process, while (b) SG/C B decides it should not
comment but its members are free to do so (and even encouraged to do
so), and (c) SG/C C decides it is "business as usual." As a result, the
public comments reflect (a) nothing from SG/C A, (b) no comments from
SG/C B but a number of comments from its members, and (c) a comment from
SG/C C (representing the consensus view of its membership) and a number
of comments from its members. How do we evaluate that in the public
comment period? Is SG/C A missing a big opportunity or is SG/C wasting
everybody's time (including its own)? [Note: No one wants to waste
time, and no one wants to miss an opportunity, so we are on the horns of
a dilemma....]
Another problem is defining who falls into the category of those who
should not (or must not) comment: All GAC members (does that extend to
their government as such?); all ccNSO members (what about non-ccNSO
ccTLDs?); all GNSO SG/Cs (but what about members of those SG/Cs, and
what about members of their members?); All ALAC members (but what about
RALOs and local structures and their members?); etc., etc. Where do we
draw the line?
As long as we are all playing by the same rules, I'm happy to play by
those rules. But if each group is going to make up their own rules,
then I would want my constituency to make its views known anywhere they
could be heard (and anywhere they are needed to support or disagree with
the views of others similarly situated in the ICANN ecosystem).
Chartering Organization participants should not be in the position of
having to make individual judgment calls about whether it is appropriate
to make public comments. CCWG and staff should not be in the position
of having to decide whether to discount certain public comments because
they came from "inside" (especially since that is an ill-defined
universe). We need a unified approach to this problem.
So what do we do?????
Greg
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net------------------------------------------------------------------------<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:
Kavouss,
I had no intention of slighting your country. I have great respect
for the people and culture of Persia, one of the world's great
civilisations. Ms. Gross comment was simply a critique of survey
design. It had nothing to do with any so called "anti GAC" sentiment
and your initial post itself was personally critical of "few
persons" and certainly Ms. Gross herself. I honestly do not know how
elections are conducted in your fine country, and although I
certainly would not have phrased things as I did had I known you
would take offence, I could not fathom how anyone could object to
Ms. Gross attempt to correct a ballot malapropos that she
believes defaults to a certain answer. I assumed your objection was
cultural in nature. My apologies to you if it were not.
As to your response, which referenced the murder of innocent people
in criticising other countries, As I sit here in Paris working to
prepare for concerts this weekend following the recent tragedy in
this city, hopeful my body will not be riddled with bullet holes
by Tuesday as industry colleagues of mine recently were, I take deep
offence. I have sent an inquiry to His Excellency Javad Kachoueian,
Ambassador of Iran to my country of Ireland, referencing your post
and asking whether that is an argumentative technique approved of by
his government. Iff any response is received, I shall share it with
you off-list.
I commend you, Kavouss, on your exceptional contributions to the
CCWG over the past year. I look forward to working with you on
substantive matters going forward and, again, apologies for any
personal slight you felt as as result of my post. That certainly
was not my intent.
Cordially,
Edward Morris
*From*: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>
*Sent*: Thursday, December 3, 2015 12:00 PM
*To*: "el@lisse.NA" <el@lisse.NA>
*Cc*: "directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>"
<directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>,
"accountability-cross-community@icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>"
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>
*Subject*: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote:
CCWG-Accountability Proposal
Dear Sir,
I strongly object to your comments inappropriately referring to my
country which I am proud of it.Mire strongly I categorically reject
your illusion to "democratic ".
If democratic country is the one that very often the people open
fire to innocent people then I am happy that those thing never
happened in my country.
Moreover, we are dealing with issues in personal capacity without
representing a given country. I do not understand your anti Iranian
feelings.
I respect all countries and their people .
Pls refrain to refer to any country in CCWG process as we do not
represent a country but a community.
Sir, you de passed the limit if politeness, code of conduct and all
international standards.
I invite you to calm down, observe ICANN code of conducts Courtesy,
friendship, and respect others .
This us the last time that tolerate and if you and any other CCWG
MEMBERS refer to my country then you will see the consequence of
such inappropriate reference.
Mr. Arasteh
Sent from my iPhone
> On 3 Dec 2015, at 09:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
>
> My, My, My, are we getting testy.
>
> I thought Sadowsky's resentment was predetermined, but it seems the heat
> is turning up.
>
> el
>
>
>> On 2015-12-03 10:01, Edward Morris wrote:
>> Hi Kavrous,
>>
>> I don't know how you do things in Iran, but in the democratic countries
>> I've lived in we try to avoid ballots that default to predetermined
>> choices. That whole integrity of the ballot thing.
>>
>> Thanks, Robin, for identifying and pointing out this software flaw.
>> Hopefully it is something staff and / or our fine leadership team will
>> be able to address in short order.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ed Morris
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 3, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>
>>
>>> It is strange that the same person always comments on ST18.
>>> There is an anti GAC sentiments in few persons members if CCWG
>>> It is a pity to gave such reactions
>>> Regards
>>> Kavoysd
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
> [...]
> --
> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
> el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone:+264 81 124 6733 <tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell)
> PO Box 8421 \ /
> Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community