Minority Reports
As I see it, one of the important results of this debate is that we try to achieve consensus. It is also apparent that there is considerable interest in filing minority reports. But the deadline for doing so appears to be very tight, and I am not sure of the rationale for doing so. There is always a need for an appropriate amount of time to properly draft a dissenting report. In my view it would be unfortunate if those who wish to file minority reports were excluded by a timetable which prohibited proper consideration. I raise this as an issue of fairness, and wonder if it is possible to extend this out a little further. Regards Chris LaHatte Ombudsman Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman Confidentiality All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential. The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint
As one of the folks who does not have the massive amount of time required to participate in these important negotiations, but is nevertheless very interested, may I submit the following: 1. I agree with Chris, this is a point of fundamental fairness. Slow down. 2. As I think it was George S has said, there is never time to do it right, but always time to do it over. Why not negotiate for more time to complete the report? 3. I agree with many of the points that Ed Morris has recently raised, and am truly alarmed at all the proposed structural changes that are being bandied about, without really profound discussion at the community level. I am afraid you are going to get a lot of comments. Please allow enough time for the public to read and decipher the report, and draft their own thoughtful responses. Thanks to you all for the prodigious amount of work you have done. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-07-29 20:05, Chris LaHatte wrote:
As I see it, one of the important results of this debate is that we try to achieve consensus. It is also apparent that there is considerable interest in filing minority reports. But the deadline for doing so appears to be very tight, and I am not sure of the rationale for doing so. There is always a need for an appropriate amount of time to properly draft a dissenting report. In my view it would be unfortunate if those who wish to file minority reports were excluded by a timetable which prohibited proper consideration. I raise this as an issue of fairness, and wonder if it is possible to extend this out a little further.
Regards
Chris LaHatte
Ombudsman
Blog https://omblog.icann.org/
Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
Confidentiality
All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential. The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Stephanie, The second public comment period will run for 40 days. The CCWG has already taken community feedback into account from the first public comment period, from public sessions in Buenos Aires, from written feedback from the Board and the GAC, and from our recent face-to-face meeting in Paris. It will do so again following the second public comment period. Forty days should be sufficient time for all ICANN groups and interested parties to consider the proposal and give informed comment. The CCWG wants lots of public comments, and is not afraid. :-) I think it's also important to note the proposal currently under discussion changes nothing about ICANN's day-to-day, month-to-month, or even year-to-year operations and community engagement structures. Only in very rare cases would the proposed Sole Member community empowerment model come into play. In my opinion, its existence would be a powerful deterrent to bad behavior and would therefore become an available but largely unneeded tool. While the anticipated model establishes important checks and balances and shared authority through a community empowerment mechanism, with an escalation path to enforce them, it otherwise doesn't structurally change ICANN at all. I hope and expect this will become more clear once the proposal is posted for the next round of public consideration and comment. I acknowledge there is more work to be done around the vote balance issue (as I said in an earlier email), but I'm confident we can resolve the issue satisfactorily following the receipt of additional community feedback. Regards, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Jul 30, 2015, at 4:03 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: As one of the folks who does not have the massive amount of time required to participate in these important negotiations, but is nevertheless very interested, may I submit the following: 1. I agree with Chris, this is a point of fundamental fairness. Slow down. 2. As I think it was George S has said, there is never time to do it right, but always time to do it over. Why not negotiate for more time to complete the report? 3. I agree with many of the points that Ed Morris has recently raised, and am truly alarmed at all the proposed structural changes that are being bandied about, without really profound discussion at the community level. I am afraid you are going to get a lot of comments. Please allow enough time for the public to read and decipher the report, and draft their own thoughtful responses. Thanks to you all for the prodigious amount of work you have done. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-07-29 20:05, Chris LaHatte wrote: As I see it, one of the important results of this debate is that we try to achieve consensus. It is also apparent that there is considerable interest in filing minority reports. But the deadline for doing so appears to be very tight, and I am not sure of the rationale for doing so. There is always a need for an appropriate amount of time to properly draft a dissenting report. In my view it would be unfortunate if those who wish to file minority reports were excluded by a timetable which prohibited proper consideration. I raise this as an issue of fairness, and wonder if it is possible to extend this out a little further. Regards Chris LaHatte Ombudsman Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman Confidentiality All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential. The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks, that is very reassuring. Those of you who are living this process day in day out may underestimate how hard it is for those who arrive at the proposal cold, to get up to speed. Jumping in to transcripts at any given point is, I can testify, more alarming than enlightening. Kind regards. Stephanie On 2015-07-30 2:09, Drazek, Keith wrote:
Hi Stephanie,
The second public comment period will run for 40 days. The CCWG has already taken community feedback into account from the first public comment period, from public sessions in Buenos Aires, from written feedback from the Board and the GAC, and from our recent face-to-face meeting in Paris. It will do so again following the second public comment period. Forty days should be sufficient time for all ICANN groups and interested parties to consider the proposal and give informed comment. The CCWG wants lots of public comments, and is not afraid. :-)
I think it's also important to note the proposal currently under discussion changes nothing about ICANN's day-to-day, month-to-month, or even year-to-year operations and community engagement structures. Only in very rare cases would the proposed Sole Member community empowerment model come into play. In my opinion, its existence would be a powerful deterrent to bad behavior and would therefore become an available but largely unneeded tool.
While the anticipated model establishes important checks and balances and shared authority through a community empowerment mechanism, with an escalation path to enforce them, it otherwise doesn't structurally change ICANN at all. I hope and expect this will become more clear once the proposal is posted for the next round of public consideration and comment.
I acknowledge there is more work to be done around the vote balance issue (as I said in an earlier email), but I'm confident we can resolve the issue satisfactorily following the receipt of additional community feedback.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 30, 2015, at 4:03 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
As one of the folks who does not have the massive amount of time required to participate in these important negotiations, but is nevertheless very interested, may I submit the following: 1. I agree with Chris, this is a point of fundamental fairness. Slow down. 2. As I think it was George S has said, there is never time to do it right, but always time to do it over. Why not negotiate for more time to complete the report? 3. I agree with many of the points that Ed Morris has recently raised, and am truly alarmed at all the proposed structural changes that are being bandied about, without really profound discussion at the community level. I am afraid you are going to get a lot of comments. Please allow enough time for the public to read and decipher the report, and draft their own thoughtful responses.
Thanks to you all for the prodigious amount of work you have done. Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-07-29 20:05, Chris LaHatte wrote:
As I see it, one of the important results of this debate is that we try to achieve consensus. It is also apparent that there is considerable interest in filing minority reports. But the deadline for doing so appears to be very tight, and I am not sure of the rationale for doing so. There is always a need for an appropriate amount of time to properly draft a dissenting report. In my view it would be unfortunate if those who wish to file minority reports were excluded by a timetable which prohibited proper consideration. I raise this as an issue of fairness, and wonder if it is possible to extend this out a little further.
Regards
Chris LaHatte
Ombudsman
Blog https://omblog.icann.org/
Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
Confidentiality
All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential. The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint
_______________________________________________ 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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 07/30/2015 03:02 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
As one of the folks who does not have the massive amount of time required to participate in these important negotiations, but is nevertheless very interested, may I submit the following: 1. I agree with Chris, this is a point of fundamental fairness. Slow down.
I agree.
2. As I think it was George S has said, there is never time to do it right, but always time to do it over. Why not negotiate for more time to complete the report?
Negotiate with whom? What I see is a conflict of evidence. .NZ (Jordan) is stating that we need to stick to the timetable because of external requirements, as follow
It is not self-created urgency in the slightest. It is urgency that comes from, among other places, ICANN itself; the United States Government; parts of the technical community who have wanted to be without the USG link for a very long time.
Firstly it is NOT the USG. I heard Mr Strickling say this, in person. But I will agree that itt does come, as you say, from within ICANN itself. That is exactly self-created urgency/ I cannot see how the technical community can set the schedule on on what is, essential, the construction of ICANN 3.0 and I'd be grateful for a pointer to who, and how, set the schedule in this way.
I would just like to clarify that I have never said "We need to stick to the timetable." I've said the timetable has been imposed on us by outside forces. It has, in terms of outside this CCWG. Whether ICANN is the prime source of the pressure or others, I have personally had pressure from all the people I mentioned. I have very specifically not mentioned any particular views about the timetable other than to generally wish we weren't so rushed. Jordan On 30 July 2015 at 19:54, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
On 07/30/2015 03:02 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
As one of the folks who does not have the massive amount of time required to participate in these important negotiations, but is nevertheless very interested, may I submit the following: 1. I agree with Chris, this is a point of fundamental fairness. Slow down.
I agree.
2. As I think it was George S has said, there is never time to do it
right, but always time to do it over. Why not negotiate for more time to complete the report?
Negotiate with whom?
What I see is a conflict of evidence. .NZ (Jordan) is stating that we need to stick to the timetable because of external requirements, as follow
It is not self-created urgency in the slightest. It is urgency that
comes from, among other places, ICANN itself; the United States Government; parts of the technical community who have wanted to be without the USG link for a very long time.
Firstly it is NOT the USG. I heard Mr Strickling say this, in person.
But I will agree that itt does come, as you say, from within ICANN itself. That is exactly self-created urgency/
I cannot see how the technical community can set the schedule on on what is, essential, the construction of ICANN 3.0 and I'd be grateful for a pointer to who, and how, set the schedule in this way.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *
Thanks for this response. I was in some ways being ironic, indeed as an observer it seems to me that this schedule, frenetic as it is, has been imposed internally. There are of course US political drivers for it, but since, as you point out, more and more it appears this will be ICANN 3.0, it seems to me there is a responsibility to slow down and follow a proper multi-stakeholder process. In my view, precluding all those who cannot sign on to day and night meetings and constant highly technical legal document revision defeats the multi-stakeholder process. I have a hard time following the flow, and I am a native english speaker used to legal document analysis. It is not fair to those who come with other languages and legal traditions to buckle them onto this roller coaster and expect them to keep up. Simply my opinion. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin On 2015-07-30 3:54, Nigel Roberts wrote:
On 07/30/2015 03:02 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
As one of the folks who does not have the massive amount of time required to participate in these important negotiations, but is nevertheless very interested, may I submit the following: 1. I agree with Chris, this is a point of fundamental fairness. Slow down.
I agree.
2. As I think it was George S has said, there is never time to do it right, but always time to do it over. Why not negotiate for more time to complete the report?
Negotiate with whom?
What I see is a conflict of evidence. .NZ (Jordan) is stating that we need to stick to the timetable because of external requirements, as follow
It is not self-created urgency in the slightest. It is urgency that comes from, among other places, ICANN itself; the United States Government; parts of the technical community who have wanted to be without the USG link for a very long time.
Firstly it is NOT the USG. I heard Mr Strickling say this, in person.
But I will agree that itt does come, as you say, from within ICANN itself. That is exactly self-created urgency/
I cannot see how the technical community can set the schedule on on what is, essential, the construction of ICANN 3.0 and I'd be grateful for a pointer to who, and how, set the schedule in this way.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (5)
-
Chris LaHatte -
Drazek, Keith -
Jordan Carter -
Nigel Roberts -
Stephanie Perrin