hi George
To recap: we face a choice about whether to dig into "cases", or whether to look at "issues". The group has agreed to look at issues, validated by cases, to avoid dragging past actions of individuals into the discussion.
We can't do it both ways.
Either we can avoid getting into specific cases in public, or not.
If we want to avoid that (and I do, because I don't think it is acceptable for this group to behave as some kind of star chamber, looking at past actions and sitting in judgement on them), then we have two options:
- look at systemic or broader issues INFORMED by those indiv experiences
- stop the work
The latter isn't acceptable. So we are proceeding on the most reasonable basis available.
The work approach, which you were present for the discussion about, is to:
- surface the issues IDd by this v small group with the full CCWG
- validate or reject the "reality" or importance of the issues based on that wider input
- make sure there are appropriate layers of solutions developed for the issues
- pull the material together and conduct a community-wide consultation on the package.
My expectation is that this will leave us with a very small group of issues and a very light set of changes recommended to how ICANN
a) provides a forum for people to raise concerns
b) shows that its staff accountability processes take account of community feedback
I haven't seen any evidence so far that warrants a more intrusive outcome, but I do not want to jump the gun. We *have* to give the wider group the opportunity to register the issues they have experienced. Or, to show that there aren't any issues. I'm keeping an open mind on that.
In doing that work of seeking input, we will then be in a position to respond to the staff's request for detail and evidence. Or, to point them in the direction to get it. Or, to respond that in our view it isn't appropriate for us to do so.
If ICANN as an organisation would like to take a different approach that digs into specific cases, or solicits evidence of those from the community for resolution or assessment, it is welcome to. That's not what our group is mandated to do.
A final point on timing. Yes, this group is running slower than planned. We've had to adjust our work method to reflect the reality of volunteer time and commitment, late criticism from you as a Board member (which however valid, was still very late), and doing a proper job. There is no way to change where we are at now.
I'd request that you focus on what we do next, and how we bring this to a conclusion, if you can.
best
Jordan