[CCWG-ACCT] Civil Discourse
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
el at lisse.na
Mon Apr 20 13:21:13 UTC 2015
with all due respect, ICANN's Expected Standard of Behavior, boils
[...] members of the ICANN community should treat each
other with civility both face to face and online. [...]
and, as you and many others know, one is NEVER wrong, speaking
"through the chair".
There are paid lobbyists for well funded interests at work here, and
I appreciate the (negotiation and other) tactics.
You on the other hand should, perhaps, look at the Charter again:
For starters, of course
Section IV: Membership, Staffing and Organization Membership
Membership in the CCWG-Accountability, and in sub-working
groups should these be created, is open to members appointed
by the chartering organizations. [...]
In other words, deciding that only lawyers may joing, and thus
preventing any appointed member from joining the Legal SubTeam is in
violation of the Charter.
[...] However, should there be a need for a consensus call
or decision, such consensus call or decision will be limited
to CCWG-Accountability members appointed by the chartering
Section V: Rules of Engagement Decision-Making
In developing its Proposal(s), work plan and any other
reports, the CCWG-Accountability shall seek to act by
Consensus calls should always make best efforts to involve
all members (the CCWG-Accountability or sub-working group).
The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each
position as having one of the following designations:
a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees;
identified by an absence of objection ] b) Consensus Ð a
position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree
We do not have Full Consensus on Substance.
As far as Process is concerned we do not even have Consensus.
In the absence of Full Consensus, the Chair(s) should allow
for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) and these, along
with the consensus view, shall be included in the report.
I have not received a response to my request on how we go about my
minority viewpoint (though not using the exact same language)
[...] Any member who disagrees with the consensus-level
designation made by the Chair(s), or believes that his/her
contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted
should first discuss the circumstances with the relevant
sub-group chair or the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs.
In the event that the matter cannot be resolved
satisfactorily, the group member should request an
opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chairs of the
chartering organizations or their designated
Done that too.
And as I have not received a response to my inquiry about the GAO
call, I'll probably have to ask the GAO themselves about what
On 2015-04-20 10:38 , Chris LaHatte wrote:
> During the last month a number of people have commented to meabout
> the recent tone has some posts.It is important when we debate
> these issues to concentrate on issues and not personalities. It
> is easy to get distracted if there are personal comments about
> another contributor, which can sometimes lead to a trail of
> discussion on the problems between the individuals rather than the
> more important work. I have noticed such comments, and would ask
> contributors to think carefully before they criticise another
> person, or even use humour about that person. In my experience
> cross-cultural humour can be a risky course and not always
> understood by the recipient. I am always ready to discuss matters
> with individuals who feel concerned, and try to resolve these by
> mediation techniques. Such contact will always be confidential."
> I am happy to discuss this with anyone.
> Chris LaHatte
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421 \ /
Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community