All,
in response to concerns raised by Greg and others: There is no intention whatsoever to prevent any individual or group from commenting. However, we would really like to encourage comment to be submitted in a concertated fashion via the Chartering Organizations. This will help avoid duplicate comments and will make comment analysis easier. Additionally, as was pointed out earlier approval from Chartering Organizations is critical in this phase. However, please note that we will proactively circle back to the Chartering Organizations as a CCWG in case public comment suggests that we need to make changes to our recommendations. Thus, the Chartering Organizations can be sure not to approve recommendations that are subject to change.
Best regards,
Mathieu, León and Thomas,
---
Hi,i believe that having made substantive changes to the plan, it had to goout for another round of public comment. And i think it has tocontinually go out for public comment as long as we are makingsubstnative changes.I see no problem in getting the chartering members to consider the planbefore all the comments are in. While I would not expect any to makefinal decisions before all the comments were in, having them considerthe plan, and possibly even comment as chartering organizations, seems auseful exercise.Of course, I also believe that any consideration must take the minoritydissenting views into account.avriOn 03-Dec-15 09:45, Jonathan Zuck wrote:I agree completely and according to our charter, we are at the point in our PROCESS where we take our proposal to the chartering organizations. It is only weak mindedness on our part that has led to any public comment at this juncture and we run the risk of letting the tail wag the dog, so to speak, thereby derailing our PROCESS.
-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 2:07 AM
To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Cc: directors@omadhina.net
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on CCWG-Accountability Proposal
Process matters.
el
On 2015-12-03 06:20, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
It is simply the case that at SOME point this is supposed to go to the
chartering orgs as they are the ultimate decision makers. The HUGE
majority of public comments come from WITHIN this community. Either we
are able to operate as a community or we are not. Continuously
throwing the same arguments over the transom because we feel like we
get a better platform than we do working within the community has
stopped entirely from being productive. I'm having the same argument
inside the IPC, by the way. The primary use of public comments should
be to generate new ideas not create ONE MORE round of repetitive
comments that require the attention of the CCWG (for responding to
which you go on to criticize the CCWG, of course, if they aren't
comments YOU feel are important). At this point, additional public
comments from within the community only serve to make people feel more
important than they are within that community. Now is the time to
lobby within the GNSO to see changes you still want made and to
compromise if you fail. Anything else is simply intellectual...er,
gymnastics... and to defend it in the name of process is disingenuous at best.
Frankly, I'd like to see these measures actually go into effect. I'd
like to stop the incredible mission creep we're getting at the end of
this process because folks feel like they have leverage. If everyone
is so concerned that WS2 isn't going to happen then we have simply
failed at WS1 as that was the whole point: to put the community in
charge of their own destiny in terms of reform...not to get every pet
issue handled in WS1. And yes, the timeline probably DOES matter
politically in the US. We can't let this go on forever. There isn't
going to be a version of this with which everyone is completely happy
so at some point, we need to go to the chartering orgs and see if they can live with it.
There really shouldn't be ANY public comment at this point but process
demands we leave a window open for those who are unrepresented. I
don't need to read another public comment from within the community
and do a whole new spreadsheet treating it on equal footing with the GNSO. It ain't.
So, to be specific I think there's a danger of letting this drag on
much longer in terms of the politics in DC. I also see very little
upside to holding an entire public comment period prior to getting
feedback from the chartering orgs. As such it's hard to compare the
pros and cons here but we have heard from he public and a fairly
significant way and gone a long way to address the concerns that have
been raised. It ain't perfect and it's not going to be. That said, if
we've done our job right, we have the ability to continue to reform
the organization regardless of the makeup of the board and the
responsibility will fall on the community to do so.
J
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf
Of *Mueller, Milton L
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 2, 2015 7:23 PM
*To:* Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on
CCWG-Accountability Proposal
Steve:
Your arguments make no sense. You say because we _/can/_ voice some
views that will, possibly (and possibly not), diffuse into our own
chartering org in a couple of weeks that we therefore _/should/_ do it
this way. In other words, it is clear that your only concern is to
compress the timeline. You have not provided a single reason why this
needs to be done and what will be gained or lost if we don't do it
that way.
I am sick of this kind of argumentation. Attempts to compress the
timeline at the expense of the accuracy, thoroughness and legitimacy
of the process have been criticized by virtually everyone except for
the handful of people, like you, who are responsible for foisting this
procedure on us.
Are you going to change this or do you want me, and about a dozen
other people, to start directly attacking the legitimacy of your process?
--MM
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf
Of *Steve DelBianco
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 2, 2015 2:30 PM
*To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on
CCWG-Accountability Proposal
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.
*From: *<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf
of Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net
<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>
*Date: *Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:55 PM
*To: *"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
CCWG-Accountability Proposal
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
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
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
---This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.https://www.avast.com/antivirus_______________________________________________Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community