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.

Kavouss, I'm not proposing any of the things you have mentioned. I am simply hoping to confirm that members of SO/ACs (including stakeholder groups and constituencies in the GNSO and their members) are free to comment in the public comment period, and that these comments will be given full and undiminished consideration by the CCWG. A significant number of comments in the first and second round were from such entities and individuals. The third comment period should be no different. That's all I'm proposing -- business as usual. Greg On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Grec

Thank you very much for the message.

Pls advise what you really proposed to be done.

Do you propose that apart from Chartering organizations other entities should also APPROVE the CCWG recommendations?

How you came to that conclusions that putting chartering organizations at the same footing as a particular entities among those you have referred to?

Are you proposing amendments to the CCWG charter?

Can we really make such amendments now? What is your concrete proposal which could be considered without having or crating conflicts with the charter?

Please be specific.

It is good to raise questions and difficulties but it is more good to propose solutions.

Regards

Kavouss

2015-12-02 19:55 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>:

...

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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Agree completely. From: 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 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

I don’t support Nigel and Milton’s view that we need to finish the public comment before asking chartering orgs about their positions.

That's a misrepresentation and a misunderstanding. The Chartering Organisations were already asked some time back. But you can't expect us to have a position before we see the finished Proposal in writing. And it changed FUNDAMENTALLY as recently as Dublin. But, and this is really important, it is necessary to receive all public comments before reaching a considered view. The SOs need ALL The CCWG input. This is a fundamental due process thing. If you keep any part of your work from the Chartering Organisations, whether it is by (a) incorrectly claiming there is consensus and then later 'dynamically' updating the documents without a formally notifed Amendment to the Deposited Draft, OR, (b) insist on a response without sufficient notice to take into account all input such as the Public Comments, then there is (if ICANN were a public body - which of course it is not) "procedural unfairness" which, if done in the UK by a government department would render the whole process susceptible to legal challeneg (judicial review) And I'm beginning to think this is around 50% intentional.

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] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 2:30 PM To: 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

Dear All, Whether some of us likes or dislike, according to CCWG Charter, we must seek advice from chartering organizations. The only thing is the modality to get those advice from right source and in time. Regards Kavouss 2015-12-03 5:20 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org>:

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 <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 *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> on behalf of Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> *Date: *Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:55 PM *To: *"accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < 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

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

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

-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Well, if we're going to carry metaphors to their extreme, I would suggest that, at this point, to the community, the chartering orgs are our "dogs in the hunt" where we should be placing our emphasis and comments coming in from community members, from whom we have already heard and whose arguments have already been discussed represent the mosquitos that will have the CCWG needlessly "chasing its tail." PC Disclaimer: None of the metaphors above are meant to impugn the intellectual integrity of any members of the CCWG or the broader internet community, nor are they meant to express support for the sport of hunting or the use of dogs in any inhumane activity. Furthermore, it is not the intention of the commenter to hint that members of the CCWG are dogs or to shame dogs through a comparison to the CCWG. Finally, the above comment is meant as humor, however weak, and any offense is purely unintentional. -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 10:01 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on CCWG-Accountability Proposal Who is the tail here, and who the dog? On 12/03/2015 02:45 PM, 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

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

Normally, I hate disclaimers. Especially when they come from experts in the legal profession ;) But Jonathan, I love this one. Thanks, something in my inbox that made me laugh! With regard to the metaphor, I submit that normally, hunters suffer more from mosquitos than their dogs Or whatever Cheers, Roelof On 03-12-15 16:13, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jonathan Zuck" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:

Well, if we're going to carry metaphors to their extreme, I would suggest that, at this point, to the community, the chartering orgs are our "dogs in the hunt" where we should be placing our emphasis and comments coming in from community members, from whom we have already heard and whose arguments have already been discussed represent the mosquitos that will have the CCWG needlessly "chasing its tail."

PC Disclaimer: None of the metaphors above are meant to impugn the intellectual integrity of any members of the CCWG or the broader internet community, nor are they meant to express support for the sport of hunting or the use of dogs in any inhumane activity. Furthermore, it is not the intention of the commenter to hint that members of the CCWG are dogs or to shame dogs through a comparison to the CCWG. Finally, the above comment is meant as humor, however weak, and any offense is purely unintentional.

-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 10:01 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on CCWG-Accountability Proposal

Who is the tail here, and who the dog?

On 12/03/2015 02:45 PM, 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

_______________________________________________ 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

Hi, i believe that having made substantive changes to the plan, it had to go out for another round of public comment. And i think it has to continually go out for public comment as long as we are making substnative changes. I see no problem in getting the chartering members to consider the plan before all the comments are in. While I would not expect any to make final decisions before all the comments were in, having them consider the plan, and possibly even comment as chartering organizations, seems a useful exercise. Of course, I also believe that any consideration must take the minority dissenting views into account. avri On 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

OK, this seems really helpful. So we don't have to approve (or, quite possibly) disapprove of the Draft Proposal by Christmas? On 12/03/2015 05:56 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:

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, --- rickert.net <http://rickert.net>

Am 03.12.2015 um 18:50 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>:

...

Hi,

i believe that having made substantive changes to the plan, it had to go out for another round of public comment. And i think it has to continually go out for public comment as long as we are making substnative changes.

I see no problem in getting the chartering members to consider the plan before all the comments are in. While I would not expect any to make final decisions before all the comments were in, having them consider the plan, and possibly even comment as chartering organizations, seems a useful exercise.

Of course, I also believe that any consideration must take the minority dissenting views into account.

avri

On 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> [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 <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: directors@omadhina.net <mailto: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> [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 <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.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

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> [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> <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> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto: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> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto: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> <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

--- 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 <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

What is the point in sending in public comments if the chartering organizations making the decision won’t even have seen them yet? The chartering organizations are supposed to consider the comments submitted in the public comment period *before* they decide whether to go ahead. We need to hear from the wider community — and non-English speakers won’t even have the translations until the end of the comment period, and thus be able to read the recommendations for the 1st time. How can CO's be “deciding” before non-English speakers can even read and respond to the recommendations? We need to do this in the proper order for our own process to be “accountable”. Thanks, Robin

On Dec 2, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:

+ 1 Milton - absolutely!

On 02/12/2015 18:46, Mueller, Milton L wrote:

...

Greg:

FYI, the survey link worked for me. Agree that the distinction between comments of Chartering orgs and general public is confusing. 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.

--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 Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 1:34 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on CCWG-Accountability Proposal

All:

Two issues with public comments. The first is primarily logistical. The second is more fundamental. Both are frustrating.

First, the "SurveyMonkey" link for the survey to respond to the Proposal is not working. The link is <https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ccwg-acct-draftproposal>https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ccwg-acct-draftproposal <https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ccwg-acct-draftproposal> and the response is

This webpage is not available

ERR_CONNECTION_TIMED_OUT

In any event, it can be difficult to see all of a survey in advance so that responses can be drafted, reviewed and revised appropriately before being entered into the survey. Can a PDF or other version of the entire survey be circulated here and posted on the public comment page as soon as humanly possible, please?

Second, the public comment page at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201... <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201...> has the following statement:

The six Chartering Organizations for the CCWG-Accountability are asked to indicate their support for the recommendations in this proposal. At the same time, public participants not involved with a Chartering Organization are invited to comment on the proposal.

This implies that the public comment period is limited to "public participants not involved with a Chartering Organization."

Does this mean that, for example, the Intellectual Property Constituency is somehow barred from public comment? Does this also mean that our members, e.g., INTA, are also barred from public comment (since they are "involved" with the GNSO through membership in the IPC)? Does this also mean that members of our members, e.g., "Company X" (a member of INTA), is barred from public comment (since they are "involved" with the GNSO through INTA's membership in the IPC)? How about members of the GAC and the ccNSO? Are all the members barred from commenting as well? If any of the above are not barred from public comment, will their public comments somehow be discounted because they are involved with a Chartering Organization, thus not "invited" to comment, and also assumed to have another outlet for their comments?

At the very least, it is confusing and off-putting. At worst, it could have the effect of chasing away potential commenters due to their "involvement" with a Chartering Organization.

Clarification would be most appreciated.

Greg

_______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>

--

Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org> + 44 771 247 2987 <https://www.avast.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-ema...> This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>_______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>

It is strange that the same person always comments on ST18. There is an anti GAC sentiments in few persons members if CCWG It is a pity to gave such reactions Regards Kavoysd Sent from my iPhone

On 2 Dec 2015, at 19:47, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:

While looking at this survey monkey, I noticed that Recommendation 11 (on Stress Test 18) defaults to “No, I do not support this recommendation.” All other questions have no default answer at all. I assume this is a mistake on Recommendation 11 also, and it will quickly be fixed to not default to any answer.

I also think the form should have allowed for a commenter to say that they support some things about a recommendation, but not others. The form forces commenters into a binary approach, which isn’t entirely helpful.

Thanks, Robin

...

On Dec 2, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

All:

Two issues with public comments. The first is primarily logistical. The second is more fundamental. Both are frustrating.

First, the "SurveyMonkey" link for the survey to respond to the Proposal is not working. The link is https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ccwg-acct-draftproposal and the response is

This webpage is not available

ERR_CONNECTION_TIMED_OUT

In any event, it can be difficult to see all of a survey in advance so that responses can be drafted, reviewed and revised appropriately before being entered into the survey. Can a PDF or other version of the entire survey be circulated here and posted on the public comment page as soon as humanly possible, please?

Second, the public comment page at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201... has the following statement:

The six Chartering Organizations for the CCWG-Accountability are asked to indicate their support for the recommendations in this proposal. At the same time, public participants not involved with a Chartering Organization are invited to comment on the proposal.

This implies that the public comment period is limited to "public participants not involved with a Chartering Organization."

Does this mean that, for example, the Intellectual Property Constituency is somehow barred from public comment? Does this also mean that our members, e.g., INTA, are also barred from public comment (since they are "involved" with the GNSO through membership in the IPC)? Does this also mean that members of our members, e.g., "Company X" (a member of INTA), is barred from public comment (since they are "involved" with the GNSO through INTA's membership in the IPC)? How about members of the GAC and the ccNSO? Are all the members barred from commenting as well? If any of the above are not barred from public comment, will their public comments somehow be discounted because they are involved with a Chartering Organization, thus not "invited" to comment, and also assumed to have another outlet for their comments?

At the very least, it is confusing and off-putting. At worst, it could have the effect of chasing away potential commenters due to their "involvement" with a Chartering Organization.

Clarification would be most appreciated.

Greg _______________________________________________ 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

My, My, My, are we getting testy. I thought Sadowsky's resentment was predetermined, but it seems the heat is turning up. el On 2015-12-03 10:01, Edward Morris wrote:

Hi Kavrous,

I don't know how you do things in Iran, but in the democratic countries I've lived in we try to avoid ballots that default to predetermined choices. That whole integrity of the ballot thing.

Thanks, Robin, for identifying and pointing out this software flaw. Hopefully it is something staff and / or our fine leadership team will be able to address in short order.

Best,

Ed Morris

On Dec 3, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:

...

It is strange that the same person always comments on ST18. There is an anti GAC sentiments in few persons members if CCWG It is a pity to gave such reactions Regards Kavoysd

Sent from my iPhone [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

Ah, the famous "A u vas negrov linchuyut" argument :-)-O greetings, el On 2015-12-03 13:58, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: [...]

If democratic country is the one that very often the people open fire to innocent people then I am happy that those thing never happened in my country. [...]

-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

Bringing this thread back to its topic.... We are in the midst of a situation that is essentially an experiment -- a simultaneous Public Comment period and [first?] Chartering Organization review/support period. Unfortunately, we have some unspecified parameters, which is probably not good experimental design (unless this is really a social experiment). In particular, the relationships among (i) the Chartering Organization review, (ii) the public comments generally, and (iii) possible public comments from members and sub-organizations of the Chartering Organizations are unspecified. Indeed, the possibility (or not) of public comments from members/sub-organizations of Chartering Organizations was not fully resolved. Focusing on this last point, there is more than one reasonable answer: 1. Public comments are completely open, and everybody participates as normal, including members and suborganizations of Chartering Organizations (COs). 2. As above, but comments from members and suborganizations of COs are significantly discounted, as their primary path for input should be their CO. 3. Public comments are not open to members or suborganizations of COs; their input is limited to the process within their CO. Whichever route we choose, we should be consistent, rather than just letting things happen. To take an example within GNSO, what if (a) Stakeholder Group/Constituency (SG/C) A decides it is inappropriate for the SG/C or its members to participate in public comment and guides all input through the GNSO process, while (b) SG/C B decides it should not comment but its members are free to do so (and even encouraged to do so), and (c) SG/C C decides it is "business as usual." As a result, the public comments reflect (a) nothing from SG/C A, (b) no comments from SG/C B but a number of comments from its members, and (c) a comment from SG/C C (representing the consensus view of its membership) and a number of comments from its members. How do we evaluate that in the public comment period? Is SG/C A missing a big opportunity or is SG/C wasting everybody's time (including its own)? [Note: No one wants to waste time, and no one wants to miss an opportunity, so we are on the horns of a dilemma....] Another problem is defining who falls into the category of those who should not (or must not) comment: All GAC members (does that extend to their government as such?); all ccNSO members (what about non-ccNSO ccTLDs?); all GNSO SG/Cs (but what about members of those SG/Cs, and what about members of their members?); All ALAC members (but what about RALOs and local structures and their members?); etc., etc. Where do we draw the line? As long as we are all playing by the same rules, I'm happy to play by those rules. But if each group is going to make up their own rules, then I would want my constituency to make its views known anywhere they could be heard (and anywhere they are needed to support or disagree with the views of others similarly situated in the ICANN ecosystem). Chartering Organization participants should not be in the position of having to make individual judgment calls about whether it is appropriate to make public comments. CCWG and staff should not be in the position of having to decide whether to discount certain public comments because they came from "inside" (especially since that is an ill-defined universe). We need a unified approach to this problem. So what do we do????? Greg On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:

Kavouss,

I had no intention of slighting your country. I have great respect for the people and culture of Persia, one of the world's great civilisations. Ms. Gross comment was simply a critique of survey design. It had nothing to do with any so called "anti GAC" sentiment and your initial post itself was personally critical of "few persons" and certainly Ms. Gross herself. I honestly do not know how elections are conducted in your fine country, and although I certainly would not have phrased things as I did had I known you would take offence, I could not fathom how anyone could object to Ms. Gross attempt to correct a ballot malapropos that she believes defaults to a certain answer. I assumed your objection was cultural in nature. My apologies to you if it were not.

As to your response, which referenced the murder of innocent people in criticising other countries, As I sit here in Paris working to prepare for concerts this weekend following the recent tragedy in this city, hopeful my body will not be riddled with bullet holes by Tuesday as industry colleagues of mine recently were, I take deep offence. I have sent an inquiry to His Excellency Javad Kachoueian, Ambassador of Iran to my country of Ireland, referencing your post and asking whether that is an argumentative technique approved of by his government. Iff any response is received, I shall share it with you off-list.

I commend you, Kavouss, on your exceptional contributions to the CCWG over the past year. I look forward to working with you on substantive matters going forward and, again, apologies for any personal slight you felt as as result of my post. That certainly was not my intent.

Cordially,

Edward Morris

------------------------------ *From*: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent*: Thursday, December 3, 2015 12:00 PM *To*: "el@lisse.NA" <el@lisse.NA> *Cc*: "directors@omadhina.net" <directors@omadhina.net>, " accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject*: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on CCWG-Accountability Proposal

Dear Sir, I strongly object to your comments inappropriately referring to my country which I am proud of it.Mire strongly I categorically reject your illusion to "democratic ". If democratic country is the one that very often the people open fire to innocent people then I am happy that those thing never happened in my country. Moreover, we are dealing with issues in personal capacity without representing a given country. I do not understand your anti Iranian feelings. I respect all countries and their people . Pls refrain to refer to any country in CCWG process as we do not represent a country but a community. Sir, you de passed the limit if politeness, code of conduct and all international standards. I invite you to calm down, observe ICANN code of conducts Courtesy, friendship, and respect others . This us the last time that tolerate and if you and any other CCWG MEMBERS refer to my country then you will see the consequence of such inappropriate reference. Mr. Arasteh

Sent from my iPhone

...

On 3 Dec 2015, at 09:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:

My, My, My, are we getting testy.

I thought Sadowsky's resentment was predetermined, but it seems the heat is turning up.

el

...

On 2015-12-03 10:01, Edward Morris wrote: Hi Kavrous,

I don't know how you do things in Iran, but in the democratic countries I've lived in we try to avoid ballots that default to predetermined choices. That whole integrity of the ballot thing.

Thanks, Robin, for identifying and pointing out this software flaw. Hopefully it is something staff and / or our fine leadership team will be able to address in short order.

Best,

Ed Morris

On Dec 3, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:

...

It is strange that the same person always comments on ST18. There is an anti GAC sentiments in few persons members if CCWG It is a pity to gave such reactions Regards Kavoysd

Sent from my iPhone [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

---

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

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

Nigel, I think the flaps are not set, so we have no choice but to do this in flight. I agree that closing the door on Chartering Organization deliberations before public comments are available is troubling. Our timeline doesn't quite do that. The final Chartering Organization approval isn't until mid-to-late January, so COs can (and should) leave themselves room to consider these inputs before the final approval. I get the sense though, that some COs are treating December 21 as essentially their final approval. Greg On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:

Greg

Interesting post.

Two observations.

1. We should not be rebuilding the flaps in-flight.

2. We need to allow the SOs to have the benefit of the general public's input in its deliberations. It is wrong to say 'here's the proposal' without allowing us to read the reactions to it. There may be (no I say WILL be) intelligent and useful comment that will inform the debate within the SO.

On 12/03/2015 04:09 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

...

Bringing this thread back to its topic....

We are in the midst of a situation that is essentially an experiment -- a simultaneous Public Comment period and [first?] Chartering Organization review/support period. Unfortunately, we have some unspecified parameters, which is probably not good experimental design (unless this is really a social experiment).

In particular, the relationships among (i) the Chartering Organization review, (ii) the public comments generally, and (iii) possible public comments from members and sub-organizations of the Chartering Organizations are unspecified.

Indeed, the possibility (or not) of public comments from members/sub-organizations of Chartering Organizations was not fully resolved.

Focusing on this last point, there is more than one reasonable answer:

1. Public comments are completely open, and everybody participates as normal, including members and suborganizations of Chartering Organizations (COs). 2. As above, but comments from members and suborganizations of COs are significantly discounted, as their primary path for input should be their CO. 3. Public comments are not open to members or suborganizations of COs; their input is limited to the process within their CO.

Whichever route we choose, we should be consistent, rather than just letting things happen. To take an example within GNSO, what if (a) Stakeholder Group/Constituency (SG/C) A decides it is inappropriate for the SG/C or its members to participate in public comment and guides all input through the GNSO process, while (b) SG/C B decides it should not comment but its members are free to do so (and even encouraged to do so), and (c) SG/C C decides it is "business as usual." As a result, the public comments reflect (a) nothing from SG/C A, (b) no comments from SG/C B but a number of comments from its members, and (c) a comment from SG/C C (representing the consensus view of its membership) and a number of comments from its members. How do we evaluate that in the public comment period? Is SG/C A missing a big opportunity or is SG/C wasting everybody's time (including its own)? [Note: No one wants to waste time, and no one wants to miss an opportunity, so we are on the horns of a dilemma....]

Another problem is defining who falls into the category of those who should not (or must not) comment: All GAC members (does that extend to their government as such?); all ccNSO members (what about non-ccNSO ccTLDs?); all GNSO SG/Cs (but what about members of those SG/Cs, and what about members of their members?); All ALAC members (but what about RALOs and local structures and their members?); etc., etc. Where do we draw the line?

As long as we are all playing by the same rules, I'm happy to play by those rules. But if each group is going to make up their own rules, then I would want my constituency to make its views known anywhere they could be heard (and anywhere they are needed to support or disagree with the views of others similarly situated in the ICANN ecosystem).

Chartering Organization participants should not be in the position of having to make individual judgment calls about whether it is appropriate to make public comments. CCWG and staff should not be in the position of having to decide whether to discount certain public comments because they came from "inside" (especially since that is an ill-defined universe). We need a unified approach to this problem.

So what do we do?????

Greg

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:

Kavouss, I had no intention of slighting your country. I have great respect for the people and culture of Persia, one of the world's great civilisations. Ms. Gross comment was simply a critique of survey design. It had nothing to do with any so called "anti GAC" sentiment and your initial post itself was personally critical of "few persons" and certainly Ms. Gross herself. I honestly do not know how elections are conducted in your fine country, and although I certainly would not have phrased things as I did had I known you would take offence, I could not fathom how anyone could object to Ms. Gross attempt to correct a ballot malapropos that she believes defaults to a certain answer. I assumed your objection was cultural in nature. My apologies to you if it were not. As to your response, which referenced the murder of innocent people in criticising other countries, As I sit here in Paris working to prepare for concerts this weekend following the recent tragedy in this city, hopeful my body will not be riddled with bullet holes by Tuesday as industry colleagues of mine recently were, I take deep offence. I have sent an inquiry to His Excellency Javad Kachoueian, Ambassador of Iran to my country of Ireland, referencing your post and asking whether that is an argumentative technique approved of by his government. Iff any response is received, I shall share it with you off-list. I commend you, Kavouss, on your exceptional contributions to the CCWG over the past year. I look forward to working with you on substantive matters going forward and, again, apologies for any personal slight you felt as as result of my post. That certainly was not my intent. Cordially, Edward Morris

------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From*: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> *Sent*: Thursday, December 3, 2015 12:00 PM *To*: "el@lisse.NA" <el@lisse.NA> *Cc*: "directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>" <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>, "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 Dear Sir, I strongly object to your comments inappropriately referring to my country which I am proud of it.Mire strongly I categorically reject your illusion to "democratic ". If democratic country is the one that very often the people open fire to innocent people then I am happy that those thing never happened in my country. Moreover, we are dealing with issues in personal capacity without representing a given country. I do not understand your anti Iranian feelings. I respect all countries and their people . Pls refrain to refer to any country in CCWG process as we do not represent a country but a community. Sir, you de passed the limit if politeness, code of conduct and all international standards. I invite you to calm down, observe ICANN code of conducts Courtesy, friendship, and respect others . This us the last time that tolerate and if you and any other CCWG MEMBERS refer to my country then you will see the consequence of such inappropriate reference. Mr. Arasteh

Sent from my iPhone

> On 3 Dec 2015, at 09:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote: > > My, My, My, are we getting testy. > > I thought Sadowsky's resentment was predetermined, but it seems the heat > is turning up. > > el > > >> On 2015-12-03 10:01, Edward Morris wrote: >> Hi Kavrous, >> >> I don't know how you do things in Iran, but in the democratic countries >> I've lived in we try to avoid ballots that default to predetermined >> choices. That whole integrity of the ballot thing. >> >> Thanks, Robin, for identifying and pointing out this software flaw. >> Hopefully it is something staff and / or our fine leadership team will >> be able to address in short order. >> >> Best, >> >> Ed Morris >> >> >> >> On Dec 3, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto: kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote: >> >>> It is strange that the same person always comments on ST18. >>> There is an anti GAC sentiments in few persons members if CCWG >>> It is a pity to gave such reactions >>> Regards >>> Kavoysd >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone > [...] > -- > Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) > el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone:+264 81 124 6733 <tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) > PO Box 8421 \ / > Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ > _______________________________________________ > 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

_______________________________________________ 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

Dear Nigel Thank you very much for your through analysis of the situation. What made me angry was that we as individual expert/ participants to CCWG representing our own or our community and NOT a given country. Thus we should not escalate that to political representatives of any country. We could dispute among ourselves without involving our courtesy of origin. Edward was took it differently than it should be, However, he sent me a nice and reconciliatory message which I welcomed it and considered the natter us closed and asked him to withdraw the letter he sent to embassy of my country in Ireland and let technical discussion to renain between technical people Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 3 Dec 2015, at 17:24, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:

Edward: in my view, your comment was unworthy. I expect it was expressed that way carelessly and accidentally, rather than otherwise.

Kavouss: As a British-English speaking person, I would certainly read the comment in much the same way you did. In my native language variant of English "I don't know how you do things in your country but . . " is a pretty nasty thing for someone to say (under the patina of politeness). But I take it as having been unintentional.

I understand how Edward's comment came across as an attack on your country. It's unfortunate that this was the result of an aside about as small a thing as a default answer or a survey.

"Democracy" is a subjective thing. It depends where you are looking at it from. (The United States to me, viewed through the lens of comparative sociology no longer, strictly, looks entirely like a democracy, more like a corporatist system of government).

(But if democracy is subjectve, fundamental rights are objective. And this is why ICANN needs a binding obligation in that regard as a prerequiste for full privatisation).

...

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:

Kavouss, I had no intention of slighting your country. I have great respect for the people and culture of Persia, one of the world's great civilisations. Ms. Gross comment was simply a critique of survey design. It had nothing to do with any so called "anti GAC" sentiment and your initial post itself was personally critical of "few persons" and certainly Ms. Gross herself. I honestly do not know how elections are conducted in your fine country, and although I certainly would not have phrased things as I did had I known you would take offence, I could not fathom how anyone could object to Ms. Gross attempt to correct a ballot malapropos that she believes defaults to a certain answer. I assumed your objection was cultural in nature. My apologies to you if it were not. As to your response, which referenced the murder of innocent people in criticising other countries, As I sit here in Paris working to prepare for concerts this weekend following the recent tragedy in this city, hopeful my body will not be riddled with bullet holes by Tuesday as industry colleagues of mine recently were, I take deep offence. I have sent an inquiry to His Excellency Javad Kachoueian, Ambassador of Iran to my country of Ireland, referencing your post and asking whether that is an argumentative technique approved of by his government. Iff any response is received, I shall share it with you off-list. I commend you, Kavouss, on your exceptional contributions to the CCWG over the past year. I look forward to working with you on substantive matters going forward and, again, apologies for any personal slight you felt as as result of my post. That certainly was not my intent. Cordially, Edward Morris ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From*: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> *Sent*: Thursday, December 3, 2015 12:00 PM *To*: "el@lisse.NA" <el@lisse.NA> *Cc*: "directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>" <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>, "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 Dear Sir, I strongly object to your comments inappropriately referring to my country which I am proud of it.Mire strongly I categorically reject your illusion to "democratic ". If democratic country is the one that very often the people open fire to innocent people then I am happy that those thing never happened in my country. Moreover, we are dealing with issues in personal capacity without representing a given country. I do not understand your anti Iranian feelings. I respect all countries and their people . Pls refrain to refer to any country in CCWG process as we do not represent a country but a community. Sir, you de passed the limit if politeness, code of conduct and all international standards. I invite you to calm down, observe ICANN code of conducts Courtesy, friendship, and respect others . This us the last time that tolerate and if you and any other CCWG MEMBERS refer to my country then you will see the consequence of such inappropriate reference. Mr. Arasteh

Sent from my iPhone

...

On 3 Dec 2015, at 09:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:

My, My, My, are we getting testy.

I thought Sadowsky's resentment was predetermined, but it seems the heat is turning up.

el

...

On 2015-12-03 10:01, Edward Morris wrote: Hi Kavrous,

I don't know how you do things in Iran, but in the democratic countries I've lived in we try to avoid ballots that default to predetermined choices. That whole integrity of the ballot thing.

Thanks, Robin, for identifying and pointing out this software flaw. Hopefully it is something staff and / or our fine leadership team will be able to address in short order.

Best,

Ed Morris

On Dec 3, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote:

...

It is strange that the same person always comments on ST18. There is an anti GAC sentiments in few persons members if CCWG It is a pity to gave such reactions Regards Kavoysd

Sent from my iPhone [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone:+264 81 124 6733 <tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

---

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

_______________________________________________ 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

+1 To put the matter a bit more prosaically, even if you believe (as I do NOT) that the pending US election is a deadline of some sort all that means is that the actual deadline for the transition is 19 January 2017. That deadline is artificial, but any earlier deadline is even more artificial (if that is possible). Depriving the community of a 40 day comment period on what is essentially a new proposal and requesting/requiring concurrent chartering organization consideration is putting the timeline cart before the substance horse. Had we not significantly changed the Version 2.0 proposal to the current Version 3.0, I could see a shortened review period (“here are the three changes we made, what do you think?”). But any fair assessment of our Third Report is that it is fundamentally different from the Second, and deserving of its own searching review and comment. After all, what if two SOs or ACs say “go back to #2?” Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key From: Stephen Deerhake [mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as] Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 1:26 PM To: 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: directors@omadhina.net; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on CCWG-Accountability Proposal Greg, In my view the way out of this is as follows: 1. The co-chairs recognize that the 30 November CCWG Accountability Proposal is a new proposal (which it is, having undergone the model change since the prior proposal), and thus should be afforded a proper, full-length public comment period as per ICANN policy. As has been noted in other posts, PROCESS is important, and the abbreviated comment period set by the co-chairs is a violation of accepted process. 2. Upon conclusion of the full length public comment period, Staff reviews, categorizes, and summarizes the comments, as they did admirably at the conclusion of the comment period for the prior proposal. Their work is published for the Community and SO/AC's benefit. 3. A reasonable period of time subsequent to the publication of the Staff report on the comments received be allotted to the SO/AC's to consider the current proposal in light of (a) their having had sufficient time to read and understand the proposal, (b) sufficient time to consider what the public commentators stated about the proposal, and (c) sufficient time to confer with their membership about the proposal (and in the case of the ccNSO, this means both ccNSO members and non-ccNSO ccTLDs). Short of following accepted procedure, this process is tainted, perhaps fatally. The shortened public comment period (particularly with regards to the time allotted to non-English speakers who will have only 3-4 days to comment by the time the translations are complete) is a joke. It's worse than a joke actually. It's giving the middle finger to the entire ICANN multi-stakeholder process, because what it is saying is "yes, we will respect established procedures and policies, except when we don’t want to." This is unmitigated nonsense. There is no compelling reason to shorten the public comment period, to demand that the SO/AC's consider and weigh in on the Proposal before the comment period has closed. In support of the shortened comment/review cycle, I have seen (at least) the following arguments made in its favor: * It has to be wrapped up before the 2016 US election cycle ramps up * The process is constrained by the long review cycle the US Congress has mandated * It has to be wrapped up before the current IANA contract expires on 30.09.2016 In my mind, all of these arguments are crap. They don’t hold water. The push to rush this incredibly important process to completion by sidestepping established procedure suggests dark forces at work behind the scenes, and further, suggests that (at least) some of the people involved in this process do not believe that the proposal will withstand the scrutiny of Congressional and/or US electoral candidate review/criticism. But perhaps what they are most worried about is a change of political control of the Executive branch of the US Government come January 20th, 2017. So Greg, the answer to your question is that it would behoove the CCWG to do this “the right way”, and not via the cobbled up, out of band approach they have undertaken, which has tainted the work of the CCWG. Stephen Deerhake From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 11:10 AM To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> > Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> ; directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on CCWG-Accountability Proposal Bringing this thread back to its topic.... We are in the midst of a situation that is essentially an experiment -- a simultaneous Public Comment period and [first?] Chartering Organization review/support period. Unfortunately, we have some unspecified parameters, which is probably not good experimental design (unless this is really a social experiment). In particular, the relationships among (i) the Chartering Organization review, (ii) the public comments generally, and (iii) possible public comments from members and sub-organizations of the Chartering Organizations are unspecified. Indeed, the possibility (or not) of public comments from members/sub-organizations of Chartering Organizations was not fully resolved. Focusing on this last point, there is more than one reasonable answer: 1. Public comments are completely open, and everybody participates as normal, including members and suborganizations of Chartering Organizations (COs). 2. As above, but comments from members and suborganizations of COs are significantly discounted, as their primary path for input should be their CO. 3. Public comments are not open to members or suborganizations of COs; their input is limited to the process within their CO. Whichever route we choose, we should be consistent, rather than just letting things happen. To take an example within GNSO, what if (a) Stakeholder Group/Constituency (SG/C) A decides it is inappropriate for the SG/C or its members to participate in public comment and guides all input through the GNSO process, while (b) SG/C B decides it should not comment but its members are free to do so (and even encouraged to do so), and (c) SG/C C decides it is "business as usual." As a result, the public comments reflect (a) nothing from SG/C A, (b) no comments from SG/C B but a number of comments from its members, and (c) a comment from SG/C C (representing the consensus view of its membership) and a number of comments from its members. How do we evaluate that in the public comment period? Is SG/C A missing a big opportunity or is SG/C wasting everybody's time (including its own)? [Note: No one wants to waste time, and no one wants to miss an opportunity, so we are on the horns of a dilemma....] Another problem is defining who falls into the category of those who should not (or must not) comment: All GAC members (does that extend to their government as such?); all ccNSO members (what about non-ccNSO ccTLDs?); all GNSO SG/Cs (but what about members of those SG/Cs, and what about members of their members?); All ALAC members (but what about RALOs and local structures and their members?); etc., etc. Where do we draw the line? As long as we are all playing by the same rules, I'm happy to play by those rules. But if each group is going to make up their own rules, then I would want my constituency to make its views known anywhere they could be heard (and anywhere they are needed to support or disagree with the views of others similarly situated in the ICANN ecosystem). Chartering Organization participants should not be in the position of having to make individual judgment calls about whether it is appropriate to make public comments. CCWG and staff should not be in the position of having to decide whether to discount certain public comments because they came from "inside" (especially since that is an ill-defined universe). We need a unified approach to this problem. So what do we do????? Greg On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> > wrote: Kavouss, I had no intention of slighting your country. I have great respect for the people and culture of Persia, one of the world's great civilisations. Ms. Gross comment was simply a critique of survey design. It had nothing to do with any so called "anti GAC" sentiment and your initial post itself was personally critical of "few persons" and certainly Ms. Gross herself. I honestly do not know how elections are conducted in your fine country, and although I certainly would not have phrased things as I did had I known you would take offence, I could not fathom how anyone could object to Ms. Gross attempt to correct a ballot malapropos that she believes defaults to a certain answer. I assumed your objection was cultural in nature. My apologies to you if it were not. As to your response, which referenced the murder of innocent people in criticising other countries, As I sit here in Paris working to prepare for concerts this weekend following the recent tragedy in this city, hopeful my body will not be riddled with bullet holes by Tuesday as industry colleagues of mine recently were, I take deep offence. I have sent an inquiry to His Excellency Javad Kachoueian, Ambassador of Iran to my country of Ireland, referencing your post and asking whether that is an argumentative technique approved of by his government. Iff any response is received, I shall share it with you off-list. I commend you, Kavouss, on your exceptional contributions to the CCWG over the past year. I look forward to working with you on substantive matters going forward and, again, apologies for any personal slight you felt as as result of my post. That certainly was not my intent. Cordially, Edward Morris _____ From: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 12:00 PM To: "el@lisse.NA <mailto:el@lisse.NA> " <el@lisse.NA <mailto:el@lisse.NA> > Cc: "directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net> " <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net> >, "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 Dear Sir, I strongly object to your comments inappropriately referring to my country which I am proud of it.Mire strongly I categorically reject your illusion to "democratic ". If democratic country is the one that very often the people open fire to innocent people then I am happy that those thing never happened in my country. Moreover, we are dealing with issues in personal capacity without representing a given country. I do not understand your anti Iranian feelings. I respect all countries and their people . Pls refrain to refer to any country in CCWG process as we do not represent a country but a community. Sir, you de passed the limit if politeness, code of conduct and all international standards. I invite you to calm down, observe ICANN code of conducts Courtesy, friendship, and respect others . This us the last time that tolerate and if you and any other CCWG MEMBERS refer to my country then you will see the consequence of such inappropriate reference. Mr. Arasteh Sent from my iPhone

On 3 Dec 2015, at 09:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA <mailto:el@lisse.NA> > wrote:

My, My, My, are we getting testy.

I thought Sadowsky's resentment was predetermined, but it seems the heat is turning up.

el

...

On 2015-12-03 10:01, Edward Morris wrote: Hi Kavrous,

I don't know how you do things in Iran, but in the democratic countries I've lived in we try to avoid ballots that default to predetermined choices. That whole integrity of the ballot thing.

Thanks, Robin, for identifying and pointing out this software flaw. Hopefully it is something staff and / or our fine leadership team will be able to address in short order.

Best,

Ed Morris

On Dec 3, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >> wrote:

...

It is strange that the same person always comments on ST18. There is an anti GAC sentiments in few persons members if CCWG It is a pity to gave such reactions Regards Kavoysd

Sent from my iPhone [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA <mailto:el@lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 <tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

---

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 _______________________________________________ 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

Have the chairs responded to these reasonable, indeed essential, suggestions by Mr. Deerhake? --MM From: Stephen Deerhake [mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as] Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 1:26 PM To: 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on CCWG-Accountability Proposal Greg, In my view the way out of this is as follows: 1. The co-chairs recognize that the 30 November CCWG Accountability Proposal is a new proposal (which it is, having undergone the model change since the prior proposal), and thus should be afforded a proper, full-length public comment period as per ICANN policy. As has been noted in other posts, PROCESS is important, and the abbreviated comment period set by the co-chairs is a violation of accepted process. 2. Upon conclusion of the full length public comment period, Staff reviews, categorizes, and summarizes the comments, as they did admirably at the conclusion of the comment period for the prior proposal. Their work is published for the Community and SO/AC's benefit. 3. A reasonable period of time subsequent to the publication of the Staff report on the comments received be allotted to the SO/AC's to consider the current proposal in light of (a) their having had sufficient time to read and understand the proposal, (b) sufficient time to consider what the public commentators stated about the proposal, and (c) sufficient time to confer with their membership about the proposal (and in the case of the ccNSO, this means both ccNSO members and non-ccNSO ccTLDs). Short of following accepted procedure, this process is tainted, perhaps fatally. The shortened public comment period (particularly with regards to the time allotted to non-English speakers who will have only 3-4 days to comment by the time the translations are complete) is a joke. It's worse than a joke actually. It's giving the middle finger to the entire ICANN multi-stakeholder process, because what it is saying is "yes, we will respect established procedures and policies, except when we don’t want to." This is unmitigated nonsense. There is no compelling reason to shorten the public comment period, to demand that the SO/AC's consider and weigh in on the Proposal before the comment period has closed.

I fully support the comments of Mr Arasteh. I also remain concerned about the legitimacy of the process. We carried out a U-turn away from the membership model after many months of work. This was as recently as just over a month ago. So essentially what we have in the Draft Proposal is an entirely new concept for the redesign and reimplementation of ICANN. And it is most substantial. Let us pass over the perception that many of us had in Dublin that the inexplicable change in the views of the authors and certain participants was the result of a secret agreement . . . and take the current proposal on its face. Those people and organisations that are significantly affected by this proposal need proper time to consider the proposal seriously and comprehensively. And public authorities (government bodies) even longer. If proper account is not taken of the concerns of Mr Arasteh, Mr Deerhake and others, the consensus view will have to be that this proposal is half-baked (in both senses of that expression). What I personally find frustrating is that this is all so unnecessary. If we had spent less time trying to chivvy the process along, we might be further along, and in more agreement! Nigel PS: I'm somewhat concerned about the repeated suggestions that one reason for the CCWG's unseemly haste is that it all to be done and dusted while there is a Democratic administration still in power in the United Sates -- this has been put to me by several respected colleagues. I know of no more sure way to ensure a negative view of ICANN by a hypothetical future incoming administration of a different political stance than such an apparently partisan approach, aimed at presenting a hypothetical non-Democrat led government with a fait accompli. I must reiterate my view that ICANN has to be above party politics in all countries. We expect it to be around through many years of different administrations, and we have to get along. On 12/06/2015 05:21 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

Dear Co- Chair In the light of many disagreement and serious objections so far expressed, taking into account my yesterday,s message, you are urged to review your position in positively respond to the valid arguments submitted by many CCWG colleagues.

Eberhard, You have tried to bring me and my testiness back into this conversation twice. Sorry, I refuse to play. I respect people who recognize agreed upon goals and work toward achieving them. The majority of the CCWG is quite capable of doing this, and I welcome their inputs. Let's get on with the work. George

On Dec 3, 2015, at 3:07 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:

My, My, My, are we getting testy.

I thought Sadowsky's resentment was predetermined, but it seems the heat is turning up.

el

On 2015-12-03 10:01, Edward Morris wrote:

...

Hi Kavrous,

I don't know how you do things in Iran, but in the democratic countries I've lived in we try to avoid ballots that default to predetermined choices. That whole integrity of the ballot thing.

Thanks, Robin, for identifying and pointing out this software flaw. Hopefully it is something staff and / or our fine leadership team will be able to address in short order.

Best,

Ed Morris

On Dec 3, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:

...

It is strange that the same person always comments on ST18. There is an anti GAC sentiments in few persons members if CCWG It is a pity to gave such reactions Regards Kavoysd

Sent from my iPhone [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

---

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

Dear Eberhard,

On Dec 4, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:

Dear Co-Chairs,

now that is a Freudian slip if I ever saw one:

The means used by Sadowsky and his ilk to achieve their end, the predetermined outcome of the transition, were well noted.

I'm not sure what you referred to here, and I really don't know who my ilk are. You are quite correct in thinking that I judge certain outcomes of the accountability process to be more desirable than others, but I do not understand why you think that any outcomes are predetermined. All of us involved in this process have our own ideas about what the most desirable outcomes are, and the end result, assuming that we do reach agreement, will be a mixture of all these.

Can you please also ask Sadowsky to refrain from emailing me at my private email address?

I simply clicked on reply to respond to your message. Your private email address was in the addressee list of your message. I'm not sure what the co-chairs have to do with this.

For Sadowsky this all may be a game, but for many, including me, it is not. Some of us work for a living.

The accountability exercise is not a game, And I don't believe that I have led anyone to believe that I think this is a game. It is an attempt to bring a more up-to-date accountability framework to what ICANN is and what it does. Not everyone will be satisfied with the result, but with some hard work, mutual respect and empathy I hope that we will be able to converge on an acceptable solution that will serve us well for the next period of ICANN's life. I also work for a living, as well as doing a lot of pro bono work related to my expertise for my community and for my region. The accountability process has taken a lot of time from a large number of people. I think that we will all be relieved when we can scale back to a steady state of activity that is more relaxed than it is currently. Eberhardt, do you remember when we first met? It was in Cotonou, Benin in November 1998 at the meeting which eventually resulted in the formation of AFRINIC. I was the keynote speaker at the conference. You came up to me and informed me why you had been insulting me on email lists for the past several years. You didn't apologize, you just stated your reasons. You haven't changed. I don't know what it is that makes you antagonistic toward me. I am sure that I do not threaten you and I do not threaten the accountability process. Perhaps you could explain what it is about me that you don't like and we could deal with that, rather than your sniping at me for what I believe is no good reason. Thank you, George

greetings, el

-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

...

On 3 Dec 2015, at 17:14, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky@gmail.com> wrote:

Eberhard,

You have tried to bring me and my testiness back into this conversation twice. Sorry, I refuse to play.

I respect people who recognize agreed upon goals and work toward achieving them. The majority of the CCWG is quite capable of doing this, and I welcome their inputs. Let's get on with the work.

George [...]

---

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

Dear Robin, Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. I apologize for the delayed reply but we had Staff double check on whether there was a default answer on any and all questions and the result is that there are no questions which default to either Yes or No. I have gone through the survey myself a couple of times (without submitting, of course) and also didn’t notice any default answers to any questions. I think perhaps what happened in your case could have been an unnoticed and involuntary click? In any case we thank you for letting us know as we were able to double check this situation. In regard to the binary option, I believe it was agreed following call #70. Best regards, León

El 02/12/2015, a las 12:47 p.m., Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> escribió:

While looking at this survey monkey, I noticed that Recommendation 11 (on Stress Test 18) defaults to “No, I do not support this recommendation.” All other questions have no default answer at all. I assume this is a mistake on Recommendation 11 also, and it will quickly be fixed to not default to any answer.

I also think the form should have allowed for a commenter to say that they support some things about a recommendation, but not others. The form forces commenters into a binary approach, which isn’t entirely helpful.

Thanks, Robin

...

On Dec 2, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:

All:

Two issues with public comments. The first is primarily logistical. The second is more fundamental. Both are frustrating.

First, the "SurveyMonkey" link for the survey to respond to the Proposal is not working. The link is https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ccwg-acct-draftproposal <https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ccwg-acct-draftproposal> and the response is

This webpage is not available

ERR_CONNECTION_TIMED_OUT

In any event, it can be difficult to see all of a survey in advance so that responses can be drafted, reviewed and revised appropriately before being entered into the survey. Can a PDF or other version of the entire survey be circulated here and posted on the public comment page as soon as humanly possible, please?

Second, the public comment page at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201... <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-201...> has the following statement:

The six Chartering Organizations for the CCWG-Accountability are asked to indicate their support for the recommendations in this proposal. At the same time, public participants not involved with a Chartering Organization are invited to comment on the proposal.

This implies that the public comment period is limited to "public participants not involved with a Chartering Organization."

Does this mean that, for example, the Intellectual Property Constituency is somehow barred from public comment? Does this also mean that our members, e.g., INTA, are also barred from public comment (since they are "involved" with the GNSO through membership in the IPC)? Does this also mean that members of our members, e.g., "Company X" (a member of INTA), is barred from public comment (since they are "involved" with the GNSO through INTA's membership in the IPC)? How about members of the GAC and the ccNSO? Are all the members barred from commenting as well? If any of the above are not barred from public comment, will their public comments somehow be discounted because they are involved with a Chartering Organization, thus not "invited" to comment, and also assumed to have another outlet for their comments?

At the very least, it is confusing and off-putting. At worst, it could have the effect of chasing away potential commenters due to their "involvement" with a Chartering Organization.

Clarification would be most appreciated.

Greg _______________________________________________ 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