answering my own email: I say this as someone who is not always in agreement with the views of the member from my SG. The point is among the participants, many of us are paladins for a particular point of view on a specific set of issues. The members were picked by their communities to be the ones that bring together the views of those who will be voting in the chartering organizations. They are, in the best case, representing a view that was gathered from the constituencies. Some of us, myself included, will argue until the end of time for the issues we think are critical. But we are singleton voices. At some point we have to put the final decisions on issues where we go around and around and around into the hands of those picked for this purpose by the bottom-up process. Otherwise we will possibly go around forever. avri On 12-Jan-16 13:01, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
While I agree that they should listen to participants as well, the members, especially when they are in consensus, are the ones who need to defend this stuff to their respective communities. As we approach the end game of WS1, we need to make sure that the members can defend the work we have all been doing and the output we come out with.
avri
On 12-Jan-16 12:25, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Robin,
Actually it's Members and Participants who are excluded, not just the Members.
But then participation would interfere with the Co-Chair(s)...
el
On 2016-01-12 18:17 , Robin Gross wrote:
One issue that has been troubling me for some time is 'how are decisions made to accept some edits and reject others in the report?’
The recording of the call between the lawyers and the co-chairs <https://community.icann.org/x/15dlAw> indicated that staff is handling the edits and making the decisions about which edits to accept and which to reject. We need a better process for managing the editing of reports.
Like the lawyers, Members who proposed important edits to the document were disappointed to find out (after the document was published) that many of these edits were rejected and we don’t know why. At some point, this report is no longer a report of the Members, especially given the vague “black box” process for staff to accept or reject Members’ edits to the draft.
If staff can be allowed to continue to draft and decide which words go into the report, then we should at least be provided with a rationale from them to explain *why* Members’ edits are being rejected from our report.
We need a much more transparent and responsive process for the drafting and publishing of reports that go out in our name. I am simply not comfortable with this vague secretive "black box" process that removes decisional authority from the Members. Please don’t give me another silly argument about the timeline. That is no excuse for the staff to over-rule Members on the content of the report. CCWG needs to improve this process before another report is issued in our name.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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