New subject: [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] about the CCWG 30-day comment period

May 6, 2015

Hello all,

So I worked at ICANN for a number of years and a big part of my focus was on improving the public comment periods.

I don't see anything wrong with ICANN staff shortening a comment period *if* they are held accountable for that decision.

It should be the general manager of Public Participation and one other relevant senior staffer. And they should be named. That is accountability.

If they make that decision without communicating sufficiently with the community, then their names are on it and they can be told in no uncertain terms that it was not appropriate. 

That will cause them to communicate in future and then we don't create yet another process within a process.

ICANN staff should be allowed to take responsibility and the community can provide that by tying it with accountability.

There's an opportunity here for real improvement rather than teeth gnashing.

Kieren

-
[sent through phone]

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Paul Rosenzweig
<paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

> I agree with David and, inferentially, with Dr. Lisse (a rare moment).  The
> foundation of accountability for an organization lies in two interrelated
> requirements -- first that the organization have rules in place that allow
> for it to be held accountable and second that the organization itself not be
> in a position to derogate from those accountability rules whatever they are.
> Here, the accountability comes in the form of a public comment period that
> is to be held open for a specified period of time.  The derogation comes in
> the ability to shorten that time period and thereby reduce the opportunity
> for the accountability mechanism to function effectively.  I have no
> objection, in principle, to allowing for a comment period to be shortened --
> when, for example, some emergency requires it or, on the other end of the
> spectrum when there are no public comments forthcoming because the proposal
> is completely uncontroversial.  But it should be axiomatic that the
> authority to modify an accountability measure should NOT lie with those who
> are being held accountable.  It is especially ironic that in this instance
> the lack of accountability goes to the comment period on enhancing
> accountability -- but I would think that staff should not have this power,
> no matter what the subject matter of the public comment is ...
> Paul
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com 
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Post [mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 10:19 AM
> To: Roelof Meijer
> Cc: ccNSO Members; CCWG Accountability; directors@omadhina.net;
> cctldworld@icann.org; J. William Semich; ccTLD Community List
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccnso-members] about the CCWG 30-day comment
> period
> It's a good reminder of why ICANN needs better accountability mechanisms . .
> .
>>The public comment announcement includes the remark "Because this 
>>(first) Public Comment period is less than the required 40-day minimum, 
>>it has been approved by two ICANN Global Leaders." The term Global 
>>Leaders is a reference to senior members of the ICANN staff and the 
>>condition was created to ensure that a check existed so that a single 
>>ICANN department would not depart from the standard default time period 
>>without broader senior staff input.  The public comment guidelines and 
>>procedures are available on the public wiki
>>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48344695
> ICANN staff are not a sufficient check on other ICANN staff - it's pretty
> simple. ICANN staff work for ICANN, obviously, and are, obviously, beholden
> to it (s they should be, as employees).  They will do - or try to do - what
> they ultimately think the corporation (i.e., the
> Board) wants, because their jobs are dependent on that.  There's absolutely
> nothing wrong with that
> - but to think of it as a "check" on pressure to depart from the required
> 40-day comment period is pretty deeply flawed.
> David
> At 09:18 AM 5/6/2015, Roelof Meijer wrote:
>>I am wondering: when Adam writes ³we² our group seems to think he means 
>>³ICANN staff².
>>I do not think ICANN staff has set our time table. I read Adam¹s "You 
>>will remember this has been our intention since we discussed planning 
>>in Istanbul, and we concluded this discussion on the CCWG call of 30 
>>April.² as us, the CCWG, deciding on it.
>>
>>Completely off-topic, but so ridiculous that I cannot help myself: if 
>>ICANN senior staff are now described as ³ICANN GlobalLeaders², what 
>>would that make its CEO? ICANN Leader of the Universe? OMG...
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Roelof
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 06-05-15 00:04, "J. William Semich" <bill@nunames.nu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >I agree with Dr. Lisse 100%.
>> >
>> >ICANN staff must not set the timetables for any consensus process. 
>> >Nor should any committee (co-)chairs.
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >
>> >Bill Semich
>> >.NU Domain
>> >
>> >On May 5, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> So,
>> >>
>> >> now ICANN staff decides what comment period is acceptable.
>> >>
>> >> Outrageously unacceptable and objected to.
>> >>
>> >> I am still waiting for the response to my request to be provided 
>> >>with the notes or emails where this was discussed and approved by the
> CCWG.
>> >>
>> >> el
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
>> >>
>> >>> On May 5, 2015, at 21:41, Adam Peake <adam.peake@icann.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Note on behalf of Thomas, Leon and Mathieu about the CCWG proposal 
>> >>>30-day  public comment period.
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi everyone,
>> >>>
>> >>> We have seen comments about the 30-day public comment period.  You 
>> >>>will  remember this has been our intention since we discussed 
>> >>>planning in  Istanbul, and we concluded this discussion on the CCWG 
>> >>>call of 30 April.
>> >>> The outcome was to propose the first public comment should be for 
>> >>>30 days,  which would allow time for us to prepare a response for 
>> >>>the ICANN meeting  in  Buenos Aires.  It is particularly important 
>> >>>that we are able to  respond to the dependencies identified by the 
>> >>>CWG-Stewardship.
>> >>>
>> >>> Recognizing that the shorter public comment is not ideal for a 
>> >>>subject of  such importance to the community, we also took into 
>> >>>account the fact that  we will to hold a second public comment 
>> >>>period some weeks after ICANN53  when we will seek input on any 
>> >>>outstanding issues and provide details and  explanation prompted by 
>> >>>discussions with the community from the first  public comment and 
>> >>>during ICANN53.
>> >>>
>> >>> The public comment announcement includes the remark "Because this
>> >>>(first)
>> >>> Public Comment period is less than the required 40-day minimum, it 
>> >>>has  been approved by two ICANN Global Leaders."  The term Global 
>> >>>Leaders is a  reference to senior members of the ICANN staff and 
>> >>>the condition was  created to ensure that a check existed so that a 
>> >>>single ICANN department  would not depart from the standard default 
>> >>>time period without broader  senior staff input.  The public 
>> >>>comment guidelines and procedures are  available on the public wiki
>> >>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48344695
>> >>>
>> >>> Warm regards,
>> >>>
>> >>> Thomas, Leon and Mathieu
>> >>> CCWG co-chairs
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
>> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communi
>> >>> ty
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
>>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> *******************************
> David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
> Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
> book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music
> http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic  publications etc.
> http://www.davidpost.com
> *******************************  
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccnso-members] about the CCWG 30-day comment period

Roelof Meijer

Burr, Becky

Dr Eberhard Lisse

James Gannon

Dr Eberhard Lisse

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez

Seun Ojedeji

David Post

Paul Rosenzweig

Kieren McCarthy

tags

participants (9)