I don’t support Nigel and Milton’s view that we need to finish the public comment before asking chartering orgs about their positions.
As our CCWG charter requires, we are now asking chartering orgs whether they support CCWG recommendations. Anyone who is part of a chartering org (for example, Milton and I are part of GNSO), can voice their views and concerns within their chartering
org to influence the chartering organization's position.
Any individual, whether or not they are pat of a chartering org, could broadcast their concerns about the CCWG proposal so that could be considered by chartering orgs in their internal deliberations.
For all these reasons, let’s continue to focus efforts on understanding concerns and questions raised by our chartering orgs, according to their own internal procedures and timelines.
I totally agree.
How can the SOs make any reasonsed decision without having the necessity
of taking into account the submitted comments when the comment period
has closed.
And I shall say so, in the ccNSO.
On 12/02/2015 06:46 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
We should have a complete and open public comment period, and then allow
the chartering orgs to make up their mind. To my mind, that should be
sequential rather than simultaneous, otherwise doubts could be raised
about whether the public comment is meaningful.
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list