Hello,

With respect; one of the problem in this process is that there has been quite a lot of unnecessary mis-interpretation, attacks and some level of attempts to intimidate. Some of us have continued to participate irrespective of this (perhaps because we are more tolerating) but i can assure you that a number of people may have been affected/discouraged by such acts.

All that I have suggested is that Minority statements be attributed appropriately, so those who have not been following can put things in perspective. I have no idea of the difficulty in doing that; since a member is representing chartering organization and intends to write on-behalf, then he/she should word the statement as such. It just seem like a logical thing to do. However, as you have rightly stated, I am just a participant and my suggestion can of-course be discarded.

All from me on this subject.

Regards

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Seun

There is no practical way anyone in the Chartering Organisations can have followed even a scintilla of this insane process.

We (the chartering organisations) appoint Members. That's representative democracy.

You and I are mere participants, are we not, and I think we owe it to the process (such as remains of it) not to try and tell the Members how to do the job they were appointed to do.

I shall, at least, refrain, from that (much as I would like to).

On 30/11/15 16:23, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu
<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote:

    FWIW, Robin’s dissent is fully in line with the official comments
    submitted by the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group during the last
    public comment period.


SO: Thats fine, especially if the NCSG still believes that the concerns
raised during the second public comment has still not been addressed.
Therefore, I would expect some of the wordings of Robin's mail to be
written with a "collective" sense to it (e.g "..Additionally, *I* object
to...", would have read "...Additionally, *We* object to...") or there
should be a line/footer indicating that the "individual" view has been
endorsed by the NCSG or even by the GNSO (if applicable as NCSG is not
solely a chartering organization per-see[1])

My goal is not to determine whether a minority statement is right or
wrong, my main point is that we ensure individual opinions are clearly
differentiated from Chartering organization opinions as the document is
expected to communicate to those who may not have been following this
process.  This is somewhat our last shot and it should communicate
intent as much as possible.

Regards
1. https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter

    ____

    --MM____

    __ __

    *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
    <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>
    [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
    <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On
    Behalf Of *Robin Gross
    *Sent:* Sunday, November 29, 2015 6:41 PM
    *To:* Thomas Rickert
    *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org
    <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Community
    *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report____

    __ __

    Thanks, Thomas.  See below.____

    __ __

    *Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG)*____

    __ __

    The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to
    improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect
    of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's
    Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an “advisory” role
    to a “decision making” role over fundamental matters at ICANN,
    including its governance.  Consequently the proposal marginalizes
    the role of Supporting Organizations (SO’s) compared to today’s
    ICANN governance structure.  The degree of governmental empowerment
    over ICANN resulting from the proposal’s community mechanism is
    dangerous to the success of the proposal’s political acceptance as
    well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet.____

    __ __

    The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on
    key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing
    power balance between SO’s and AC’s as determined by relative board
    appointments.  Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates
    the AC’s relative to the SO’s compared with today’s balance on
    ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a
    decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the
    Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within
    the SO’s mandate.   The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in
    ICANN’s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public
    comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to
    address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing
    SO’s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report.  The community
    mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and
    responsibilities of the various SO’s and AC’s, and the dangers
    inherent in changing those roles with a “one size fits all” approach
    to critical decision making. ____

    __ __

    Additionally, I object to the proposed departure from ICANN’s
    typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for
    CCWG-Accountability.  The 3rd report’s public comment only allows
    for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are
    scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public
    comment period for a report of this significance and with so many
    important changes since previous drafts.____

    __ __

    Robin Gross____

    __ __

        On Nov 29, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net
        <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote:____

        __ __

        Dear Robin,____

        as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will
        be included in the report as appendices if and when they are
        received.____

        __ __

        Best,____

        Thomas ____

        __ __

        ---____

        rickert.net <http://rickert.net/>____

        __ __


        Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org
        <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>:____

            Dear Co-Chairs,

            I have still not received a response to this request.  What
            is the process for submitting minority statements?  Please
            advise.

            Thanks,
            Robin



            ____

                On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross
                <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>
                wrote:____

                __ __

                Dear Co-Chairs,____

                __ __

                Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and
                process for ensuring that minority statements will be
                included in the report [of the executive summary]?____

                __ __

                Thank you,____

                Robin____

                ___________________________________________________

                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




--
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    /Seun Ojedeji,
    Federal University Oye-Ekiti
    web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
    Mobile: +2348035233535
    //alt email:<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
    <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>/

        Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your
        action!




_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community



--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!