[CCWG-ACCT] Frozen Draft Report

[Jacob Malthouse]

Main comment is on the reconsideration request (RfR) process. It appears
greatly expanded. It is now involving the Board and Ombudsman for all RfRs,
and scope for what is an acceptable RfR is much broader. A 120 decision is
also much longer than most RfRs are taking.

The Ombudsman is currently one human with little budget. There is simply no
way his/her office could handle 60+ RfR per year. One could expect regular
RfR challenges of ICANN policy decisions, plus regular challenges of ICANN
new gTLD or any TLD decisions as a result. Keep in mind ICANN envisions a
rolling new gTLD programme, with continued applications over time. One
could reasonably expect upwards of 100 RfR per year under this proposed
model.

Moreover, it is unclear how it interacts with a standard Ombudsman
complaint process, the DIDP, or the CEP/IRP.  This is because at no point
is the 'end to end' appeals / accountability process described.

This report - or the final version - should include a clear road map with
case examples of complaints going through the process with a worst case
scenario explored and considered by this group before being finalised.

In other words, this looks like a good description of the parts of the
animal, but gives me little clue what the animal looks like.

Hopefully that's the next stage of the work.


Jacob Malthouse
Co-founder & Director, Big Room Inc.
778-960-6527
www.bigroom.ca

On 20 April 2015 at 09:38, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:

> Dear Co-Chairs,
>
> Thogh Mr Arasteh is technically incorrect as the Charter is unequivocally
> clear, that it must be done, I find myself in agreement otherwise.
>
> el
> --
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2015, at 15:34, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thomas
> It is a pity that there is no opportunity that minority  from formal
> members of CCWG , s views could not be reflected in the report which could
>  give the wrong impression that the output represent consensus.
> In ICG we have the  opportunity to include minority views after several
> chair,s attempt ti resolve that
> Having said that it is necessary to indicate in the output dic.'that it
> does not represent the consensus
> Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 20 Apr 2015, at 15:54, Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de> wrote:
>
> Dear Eberhard,
> it is not foreseen in our charter to have minority views for other
> scenarios than the consensus recommendations. I suggest you use the public
> comment period to voice your concerns or indicate your preference where our
> report is providing options as I am sure many of the colleagues in the CCWG
> and their respective groups will do.
>
> Thomas
>
> ---
> rickert.net
>
>
> Am 20.04.2015 um 15:42 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na>:
>
> Dear Co-Chairs
>
> indeed we do not have Consensus on the interim findings, so I intend to
> provide a minority viewpoint on the interim findings for public comment.
>
> el
> --
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2015, at 14:35, Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de> wrote:
>
> Dear Eberhard,
> please note that our group has not reached a consensus yet. As mentioned
> on numerous occasions during our calls, we plan to present our interim
> findings to the community and invite the community to comment.
>
> The group will be alerted if and when we are asking for support with or
> objections to a set of recommendations that could form the consensus of the
> group. You will also be able to chime in when such final report is prepared
> for publication.
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
> ---
> rickert.net
>
>
> Am 18.04.2015 um 12:28 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na>:
>
> Dear Co-Chairs,
>
> please advise how I will be able to attach my dissenting minority report
> (objecting against process and (lack of) substance) so it can be publicly
> commented on.
>
> greetings, el
>
> --
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
>
> On Apr 18, 2015, at 10:10, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net> wrote:
>
> All,
> please find attached the draft report with the input we got from the
> sub-teams. They can also be found at
> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report. This is
> the frozen version of the document until our intensive two work days.
> Please note that you know most of the information already. We suggest you
> focus on the recommendations of WP1 and WP2, since the introductory part is
> primarily narrative and giving context. The stress test have been discussed
> quite extensively already. We are working on summaries or tables to make it
> easier for you to digest the information, but we wanted to get the frozen
> draft report out to you as soon as possible.
> Such additional materials will be worked on in collaboration with the
> rapporteurs to ensure that we provide information in a more handy while not
> misrepresenting interim work results.
>
> Let us also use this opportunity to thank all of you, our fabulous
> rapporteurs and staff for their outstanding work and commitment.
>
> Kindest regards,
> León, Mathieu and Thomas
>
>
> <Appendices - 17 April.pdf>
>
> <CCWG-Report Draft v1.1.pdf>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150420/7e540fdf/attachment.html>