Every once in a while, I agree with Milton Mueller. This is one of those times. I'm not sure how anyone can comment on and revise a draft document without being (constructively) critical. It's also important to be transparent about the process, even if the transparency exposes some of the shortcomings of the process or the result (as a matter of fact, that is when transparency is most important). I'm not sure why anyone would see any negative intent in counsels' email. This email list is a workspace, after all, and this is what work looks like. Frankly, I'd be a lot more concerned if counsel did not reiterate important comments that were not incorporated in a prior draft. Good counsel tells you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear. I think Rosemary and Holly did everything right in this instance. I think the changes suggested were sensible, appropriate and consistent with my understanding of what we intended to say (i.e., our policy approach). I was disappointed to see that some of these sensible (and as Milton said, important) changes were not made the first time around, and I join Milton in hoping they are incorporated this time. Greg Shatan On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:

Dear Holly and Rosemary:

Dear CCWG, Co-Chairs and ICANN Staff, It has been brought to our attention that our comments on the Third Draft Proposal have been misunderstood by some to indicate that we are critical of the Draft. Our intent was simply to help to assure that the Final Proposal is the highest quality reflection of the solid efforts of the CCWG to date by pointing out where we thought some clarification would be helpful to an unfamiliar reader and to the eventual bylaw drafting effort.

MM: I do not think anyone suggested that your comments were critical of the substance of the draft, or of the CCWG, or of anyone’s motives. You did, however, point out that there was a need for clarification where the draft may not have reflected the intent of the CCWG. You duly made some quite reasonable suggestions to fix the problems. These suggestions were not reflected in the draft. Those are simple facts.

Some of those changes were pretty important; e.g., changing “the interests of the corporation” to “the global public interest” determined via a bottom up MS process.

As you surely know, there is a major controversy on this list. Many of us believe the co-chairs are responding to the time pressure (about which they have legitimate concerns) by rushing things through to meet an arbitrary date target and not giving due consideration to public comments or even to the kind of changes you suggested. There’s no way around it: Rosemary’s message pretty much confirmed those concerns. This doesn’t say anything about motives and is not a personal criticism of anyone. It simply calls our attention to the costs of rushing. So, thanks for reiterating your proposed editorial changes and I hope they are incorporated this time.

Dr. Milton L. Mueller

Professor, School of Public Policy

Georgia Institute of Technology

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

Exactly right Milton – but I am sure that the plea for more time will fall on deaf ears. S 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 <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...> From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 9:51 PM To: Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com>; Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community@icann.org) <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org> Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>; ICANN-Adler <ICANN@adlercolvin.com> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Third Draft Proposal Dear Holly and Rosemary: Dear CCWG, Co-Chairs and ICANN Staff, It has been brought to our attention that our comments on the Third Draft Proposal have been misunderstood by some to indicate that we are critical of the Draft. Our intent was simply to help to assure that the Final Proposal is the highest quality reflection of the solid efforts of the CCWG to date by pointing out where we thought some clarification would be helpful to an unfamiliar reader and to the eventual bylaw drafting effort. MM: I do not think anyone suggested that your comments were critical of the substance of the draft, or of the CCWG, or of anyone’s motives. You did, however, point out that there was a need for clarification where the draft may not have reflected the intent of the CCWG. You duly made some quite reasonable suggestions to fix the problems. These suggestions were not reflected in the draft. Those are simple facts. Some of those changes were pretty important; e.g., changing “the interests of the corporation” to “the global public interest” determined via a bottom up MS process. As you surely know, there is a major controversy on this list. Many of us believe the co-chairs are responding to the time pressure (about which they have legitimate concerns) by rushing things through to meet an arbitrary date target and not giving due consideration to public comments or even to the kind of changes you suggested. There’s no way around it: Rosemary’s message pretty much confirmed those concerns. This doesn’t say anything about motives and is not a personal criticism of anyone. It simply calls our attention to the costs of rushing. So, thanks for reiterating your proposed editorial changes and I hope they are incorporated this time. Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology