improve working methods for drafting of reports issued in name of CCWG - ACCT
One issue that has been troubling me for some time is 'how are decisions made to accept some edits and reject others in the report?’ The recording of the call between the lawyers and the co-chairs <https://community.icann.org/x/15dlAw> indicated that staff is handling the edits and making the decisions about which edits to accept and which to reject. We need a better process for managing the editing of reports. Like the lawyers, Members who proposed important edits to the document were disappointed to find out (after the document was published) that many of these edits were rejected and we don’t know why. At some point, this report is no longer a report of the Members, especially given the vague “black box” process for staff to accept or reject Members’ edits to the draft. If staff can be allowed to continue to draft and decide which words go into the report, then we should at least be provided with a rationale from them to explain *why* Members’ edits are being rejected from our report. We need a much more transparent and responsive process for the drafting and publishing of reports that go out in our name. I am simply not comfortable with this vague secretive "black box" process that removes decisional authority from the Members. Please don’t give me another silly argument about the timeline. That is no excuse for the staff to over-rule Members on the content of the report. CCWG needs to improve this process before another report is issued in our name. Thanks, Robin
Robin, Actually it's Members and Participants who are excluded, not just the Members. But then participation would interfere with the Co-Chair(s)... el On 2016-01-12 18:17 , Robin Gross wrote:
One issue that has been troubling me for some time is 'how are decisions made to accept some edits and reject others in the report?’
The recording of the call between the lawyers and the co-chairs <https://community.icann.org/x/15dlAw> indicated that staff is handling the edits and making the decisions about which edits to accept and which to reject. We need a better process for managing the editing of reports.
Like the lawyers, Members who proposed important edits to the document were disappointed to find out (after the document was published) that many of these edits were rejected and we don’t know why. At some point, this report is no longer a report of the Members, especially given the vague “black box” process for staff to accept or reject Members’ edits to the draft.
If staff can be allowed to continue to draft and decide which words go into the report, then we should at least be provided with a rationale from them to explain *why* Members’ edits are being rejected from our report.
We need a much more transparent and responsive process for the drafting and publishing of reports that go out in our name. I am simply not comfortable with this vague secretive "black box" process that removes decisional authority from the Members. Please don’t give me another silly argument about the timeline. That is no excuse for the staff to over-rule Members on the content of the report. CCWG needs to improve this process before another report is issued in our name.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, While I agree that they should listen to participants as well, the members, especially when they are in consensus, are the ones who need to defend this stuff to their respective communities. As we approach the end game of WS1, we need to make sure that the members can defend the work we have all been doing and the output we come out with. avri On 12-Jan-16 12:25, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Robin,
Actually it's Members and Participants who are excluded, not just the Members.
But then participation would interfere with the Co-Chair(s)...
el
On 2016-01-12 18:17 , Robin Gross wrote:
One issue that has been troubling me for some time is 'how are decisions made to accept some edits and reject others in the report?’
The recording of the call between the lawyers and the co-chairs <https://community.icann.org/x/15dlAw> indicated that staff is handling the edits and making the decisions about which edits to accept and which to reject. We need a better process for managing the editing of reports.
Like the lawyers, Members who proposed important edits to the document were disappointed to find out (after the document was published) that many of these edits were rejected and we don’t know why. At some point, this report is no longer a report of the Members, especially given the vague “black box” process for staff to accept or reject Members’ edits to the draft.
If staff can be allowed to continue to draft and decide which words go into the report, then we should at least be provided with a rationale from them to explain *why* Members’ edits are being rejected from our report.
We need a much more transparent and responsive process for the drafting and publishing of reports that go out in our name. I am simply not comfortable with this vague secretive "black box" process that removes decisional authority from the Members. Please don’t give me another silly argument about the timeline. That is no excuse for the staff to over-rule Members on the content of the report. CCWG needs to improve this process before another report is issued in our name.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
answering my own email: I say this as someone who is not always in agreement with the views of the member from my SG. The point is among the participants, many of us are paladins for a particular point of view on a specific set of issues. The members were picked by their communities to be the ones that bring together the views of those who will be voting in the chartering organizations. They are, in the best case, representing a view that was gathered from the constituencies. Some of us, myself included, will argue until the end of time for the issues we think are critical. But we are singleton voices. At some point we have to put the final decisions on issues where we go around and around and around into the hands of those picked for this purpose by the bottom-up process. Otherwise we will possibly go around forever. avri On 12-Jan-16 13:01, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
While I agree that they should listen to participants as well, the members, especially when they are in consensus, are the ones who need to defend this stuff to their respective communities. As we approach the end game of WS1, we need to make sure that the members can defend the work we have all been doing and the output we come out with.
avri
On 12-Jan-16 12:25, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Robin,
Actually it's Members and Participants who are excluded, not just the Members.
But then participation would interfere with the Co-Chair(s)...
el
On 2016-01-12 18:17 , Robin Gross wrote:
One issue that has been troubling me for some time is 'how are decisions made to accept some edits and reject others in the report?’
The recording of the call between the lawyers and the co-chairs <https://community.icann.org/x/15dlAw> indicated that staff is handling the edits and making the decisions about which edits to accept and which to reject. We need a better process for managing the editing of reports.
Like the lawyers, Members who proposed important edits to the document were disappointed to find out (after the document was published) that many of these edits were rejected and we don’t know why. At some point, this report is no longer a report of the Members, especially given the vague “black box” process for staff to accept or reject Members’ edits to the draft.
If staff can be allowed to continue to draft and decide which words go into the report, then we should at least be provided with a rationale from them to explain *why* Members’ edits are being rejected from our report.
We need a much more transparent and responsive process for the drafting and publishing of reports that go out in our name. I am simply not comfortable with this vague secretive "black box" process that removes decisional authority from the Members. Please don’t give me another silly argument about the timeline. That is no excuse for the staff to over-rule Members on the content of the report. CCWG needs to improve this process before another report is issued in our name.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
--- 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 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
That may result in another ALAC being pulled. As long as there is Consensus or Full Consensus, the distinction between Members and Participants does not exists. Whether you can pitch this to your Constituency does not concern anyone but yourself. Please do not concern yourself what other members/participants may or may not be able or willing to pitch. -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 12 Jan 2016, at 19:01, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
While I agree that they should listen to participants as well, the members, especially when they are in consensus, are the ones who need to defend this stuff to their respective communities. As we approach the end game of WS1, we need to make sure that the members can defend the work we have all been doing and the output we come out with.
avri
On 12-Jan-16 12:25, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Robin,
Actually it's Members and Participants who are excluded, not just the Members.
But then participation would interfere with the Co-Chair(s)...
el
On 2016-01-12 18:17 , Robin Gross wrote: One issue that has been troubling me for some time is 'how are decisions made to accept some edits and reject others in the report?’
The recording of the call between the lawyers and the co-chairs <https://community.icann.org/x/15dlAw> indicated that staff is handling the edits and making the decisions about which edits to accept and which to reject. We need a better process for managing the editing of reports.
Like the lawyers, Members who proposed important edits to the document were disappointed to find out (after the document was published) that many of these edits were rejected and we don’t know why. At some point, this report is no longer a report of the Members, especially given the vague “black box” process for staff to accept or reject Members’ edits to the draft.
If staff can be allowed to continue to draft and decide which words go into the report, then we should at least be provided with a rationale from them to explain *why* Members’ edits are being rejected from our report.
We need a much more transparent and responsive process for the drafting and publishing of reports that go out in our name. I am simply not comfortable with this vague secretive "black box" process that removes decisional authority from the Members. Please don’t give me another silly argument about the timeline. That is no excuse for the staff to over-rule Members on the content of the report. CCWG needs to improve this process before another report is issued in our name.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
--- 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All, I have sepent my life on this issue, The edits or summary of discussion should exactly reflects what has been said. We have recording and the summary muist be in line with records The duty of the chairmen or Co- Chairs is to ensure that no arbitray decision to retain or delet the statements 7 proposals is allowed. Moreover, some of the resume have no real meaning . They are al telegraphic form . Sometime there are no vers no nounss and a lot of gramatical errors,. WE need to improve that. Many thing that I said is not rflected. My statments were agreed by the Co- chairs but they were suppressed. Regards Kavouss 2016-01-12 19:23 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
That may result in another ALAC being pulled.
As long as there is Consensus or Full Consensus, the distinction between Members and Participants does not exists. Whether you can pitch this to your Constituency does not concern anyone but yourself.
Please do not concern yourself what other members/participants may or may not be able or willing to pitch.
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 12 Jan 2016, at 19:01, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
While I agree that they should listen to participants as well, the members, especially when they are in consensus, are the ones who need to defend this stuff to their respective communities. As we approach the end game of WS1, we need to make sure that the members can defend the work we have all been doing and the output we come out with.
avri
On 12-Jan-16 12:25, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Robin,
Actually it's Members and Participants who are excluded, not just the Members.
But then participation would interfere with the Co-Chair(s)...
el
On 2016-01-12 18:17 , Robin Gross wrote: One issue that has been troubling me for some time is 'how are decisions made to accept some edits and reject others in the report?’
The recording of the call between the lawyers and the co-chairs <https://community.icann.org/x/15dlAw> indicated that staff is handling the edits and making the decisions about which edits to accept and which to reject. We need a better process for managing the editing of reports.
Like the lawyers, Members who proposed important edits to the document were disappointed to find out (after the document was published) that many of these edits were rejected and we don’t know why. At some point, this report is no longer a report of the Members, especially given the vague “black box” process for staff to accept or reject Members’ edits to the draft.
If staff can be allowed to continue to draft and decide which words go into the report, then we should at least be provided with a rationale from them to explain *why* Members’ edits are being rejected from our report.
We need a much more transparent and responsive process for the drafting and publishing of reports that go out in our name. I am simply not comfortable with this vague secretive "black box" process that removes decisional authority from the Members. Please don’t give me another silly argument about the timeline. That is no excuse for the staff to over-rule Members on the content of the report. CCWG needs to improve this process before another report is issued in our name.
Thanks, Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
--- 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 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 am simply not comfortable with this vague secretive "black box" process that removes decisional authority from the Members.
I am genuinely wondering how this has taken so long for other people to realise this.
This has been discussed several times before. Due to the impression that nothing has changed after previous conversations and we are coming so close to the bitter end, it becomes a critical necessity. avri On 12-Jan-16 12:57, Nigel Roberts wrote:
.. . .. .. I am simply not comfortable with this vague secretive "black box" process that removes decisional authority from the Members.
I am genuinely wondering how this has taken so long for other people to realise this.
_______________________________________________ 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
Avri I am probably being very dull after the end of a long day of doing figurework, but I really don't quite follow your meaning here. What exactly is the critical necessity to which you refer? Having a vague secretive black box, or making sure we don't have one?? I think it's a bit late for the latter. Nigel (Unless Darth Vader is going to take off his helmet, the Empire's will shall prevail?) On 12/01/16 18:04, Avri Doria wrote:
This has been discussed several times before.
Due to the impression that nothing has changed after previous conversations and we are coming so close to the bitter end, it becomes a critical necessity.
avri
On 12-Jan-16 12:57, Nigel Roberts wrote:
.. . .. .. I am simply not comfortable with this vague secretive "black box" process that removes decisional authority from the Members.
I am genuinely wondering how this has taken so long for other people to realise this.
participants (6)
-
Avri Doria -
Avri Doria -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Nigel Roberts -
Robin Gross