I have seen a few comments along the 'we are ignoring the public comments! Omg!' track in the past few days, and to be honest I am a little confused.

My impression was and is that:

- the working method we are using was documented, discussed and agreed by the CCWG.

- in preparing the first reading docs, all of the public comments and the trends from them were taken into account - they are what drives the 'issues to discuss' the co-chair documents set out.

- all of us as members and participants have and had a responsibility to review the public comment tool, and to draw to the attention of the group any major points and trends in the comments that were missed.

- we said and I think we have tried to give priority to the views of chartering organisations (where they have been able to get a view agreed and shared), and will keep doing so as more do so. But this does not mean the public comments have been ignored if not from chartering organisations.

So, given the above, I really struggle to see how people can conclude that public comments are being ignored.

What am I missing? How are people concluding that we aren't doing due diligence? What have we missed that should have been taken into account?

These aren't rhetorical questions from me. My comment review hasn't been detailed but I can't think of major points that have been missed.

Accepting as I do that the public comments are being dealt with properly, I also have an opinion that the group has largely come to a rough consensus on many points, and that unless there was an overwhelming weight of comments demanding a change to something, changes are at this point unlikely.

On Tuesday, 19 January 2016, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

This has a certain "better late than never" quality to it. We seem to be blowing past the public comments (with one rather notable exception...) on our way toward a revised and presumably final proposal.

It's rather sobering to see the first effort in making sense of the public comments come as we are into the second and final reading on many of the recommendations. Perhaps "sobering" is not quite the right word. "Daft" comes to mind, but that may be too harsh and a result of staying up too late.

Regardless, we have to be careful that we let the process dictate the result, rather than vice versa.

Greg

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> wrote:

Dear all,

For your information - analysis and trends slides of your Third Public Comment period (see attached) can be found on your wiki page: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984613

Link to public comment box: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en
Link to public comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/
Link to public comment summary and analysis: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-08jan16-en.pdf

Best regards

Alice

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