[CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on CCWG-Accountability Proposal

[Greg Shatan]

Kavouss,

I'm not proposing any of the things you have mentioned.

I am simply hoping to confirm that members of SO/ACs (including stakeholder
groups and constituencies in the GNSO and their members) are free to
comment in the public comment period, and that these comments will be given
full and undiminished consideration by the CCWG.  A significant number of
comments in the first and second round were from such entities and
individuals.  The third comment period should be no different.

That's all I'm proposing -- business as usual.

Greg

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Grec
>
> Thank you very much for the message.
>
> Pls advise what you really proposed to be done.
>
> Do you propose that apart from Chartering organizations other entities
> should also APPROVE the  CCWG recommendations?
>
> How you came to that conclusions that putting chartering organizations at
> the same footing as a particular entities among those you have referred to?
>
> Are you proposing amendments to the CCWG charter?
>
> Can we really make such amendments now?
> What is your concrete proposal which could be considered without having or
> crating conflicts with the charter?
>
> Please be specific.
>
> It is good to raise questions and difficulties but it is more good to
> propose solutions.
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
> 2015-12-02 19:55 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>:
>
>> I totally agree.
>>
>> How can the SOs make any reasonsed decision without having the necessity
>> of taking into account the submitted comments when the comment period has
>> closed.
>>
>> And I shall say so, in the ccNSO.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/02/2015 06:46 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>
>> We should have a complete and open public comment period, and then allow
>>> the chartering orgs to make up their mind. To my mind, that should be
>>> sequential rather than simultaneous, otherwise doubts could be raised
>>> about whether the public comment is meaningful.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20151202/2d58ef61/attachment-0001.html>