Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccnso-members] about the CCWG 30-day comment period
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-community
Supreme Leader of the Global Internet J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz On 5/6/15, 9:18 AM, "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.or g_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D48344695&d=AwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=7sGp24jbBukIHCrY F0V6pKMBTNXU_XGOWPKLenlDbO4&s=TDGni9zmPd1WsDjydwXHkeq4r_Pr36HgW19mv4hdy xU&e=
Warm regards,
Thomas, Leon and Mathieu CCWG co-chairs _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=7sGp24jbBukIH CrYF0V6pKMBTNXU_XGOWPKLenlDbO4&s=pYEe5GZ4g_Gdd9VruLF943nN1wHlpOiZECHShp B-GEA&e=
_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lists.cctld-2Dmana gers.org_mailman_listinfo_cctldcommunity&d=AwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw &r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=7sGp24jbBukIHCrYF0V6pKMBT NXU_XGOWPKLenlDbO4&s=aOT0boeZTOxBZAJOBrEfJm29YvrcHyhLFNL4aNSNtpA&e=
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
At least the previous one was smoking something. el On 2015-05-06 15:03, Burr, Becky wrote:
Supreme Leader of the Global Internet
J. Beckwith Burr [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Dear Co-Chairs, I finally find myself in full agreement with the distinguished Doctor, a day for celebration for all. :-) -James -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard Lisse Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 3:19 PM To: ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org Cc: cctldworld@icann.org; directors@omadhina.net; ccnso-members@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] about the CCWG 30-day comment period At least the previous one was smoking something. el On 2015-05-06 15:03, Burr, Becky wrote:
Supreme Leader of the Global Internet
J. Beckwith Burr [...] -- 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 Co-Chairs, maybe he's just trying to hard and should mellow a little. But then in Colorado he might run into the man. I am hardly distinguished, by the way. el On 2015-05-06 15:27, James Gannon wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I finally find myself in full agreement with the distinguished Doctor, a day for celebration for all. :-)
-James
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard Lisse Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 3:19 PM To: ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org Cc: cctldworld@icann.org; directors@omadhina.net; ccnso-members@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] about the CCWG 30-day comment period
At least the previous one was smoking something.
el
On 2015-05-06 15:03, Burr, Becky wrote:
Supreme Leader of the Global Internet
J. Beckwith Burr [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
I thought that title was recently given to Mark Zuckerberg, for connecting the unconnected to FB Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________ email: crg@isoc-cr.org Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7173 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA
On May 6, 2015, at 8:03 AM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
Supreme Leader of the Global Internet
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
On 5/6/15, 9:18 AM, "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.or <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.or> g_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D48344695&d=AwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=7sGp24jbBukIHCrY F0V6pKMBTNXU_XGOWPKLenlDbO4&s=TDGni9zmPd1WsDjydwXHkeq4r_Pr36HgW19mv4hdy xU&e=
Warm regards,
Thomas, Leon and Mathieu CCWG co-chairs _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm> an_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=7sGp24jbBukIH CrYF0V6pKMBTNXU_XGOWPKLenlDbO4&s=pYEe5GZ4g_Gdd9VruLF943nN1wHlpOiZECHShp B-GEA&e=
_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org <mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lists.cctld-2Dmana <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lists.cctld-2Dmana> gers.org <http://gers.org/>_mailman_listinfo_cctldcommunity&d=AwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw &r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=7sGp24jbBukIHCrYF0V6pKMBT NXU_XGOWPKLenlDbO4&s=aOT0boeZTOxBZAJOBrEfJm29YvrcHyhLFNL4aNSNtpA&e=
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org <mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org>
_______________________________________________ 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>
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote:
I thought that title was recently given to Mark Zuckerberg, for connecting the unconnected to FB
Indeed! for improving his business visibility on the internet ;-) Cheers!
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________
email: crg@isoc-cr.org Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7173 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA
On May 6, 2015, at 8:03 AM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
Supreme Leader of the Global Internet
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
On 5/6/15, 9:18 AM, "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.or g_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D48344695&d=AwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=7sGp24jbBukIHCrY F0V6pKMBTNXU_XGOWPKLenlDbO4&s=TDGni9zmPd1WsDjydwXHkeq4r_Pr36HgW19mv4hdy xU&e=
Warm regards,
Thomas, Leon and Mathieu CCWG co-chairs _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=7sGp24jbBukIH CrYF0V6pKMBTNXU_XGOWPKLenlDbO4&s=pYEe5GZ4g_Gdd9VruLF943nN1wHlpOiZECHShp B-GEA&e=
_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lists.cctld-2Dmana gers.org_mailman_listinfo_cctldcommunity&d=AwIFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw &r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=7sGp24jbBukIHCrYF0V6pKMBT NXU_XGOWPKLenlDbO4&s=aOT0boeZTOxBZAJOBrEfJm29YvrcHyhLFNL4aNSNtpA&e=
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
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-community
_______________________________________________ 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 *******************************
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
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
participants (9)
-
Burr, Becky -
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez -
David Post -
Dr Eberhard Lisse -
James Gannon -
Kieren McCarthy -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Roelof Meijer -
Seun Ojedeji