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

[Christopher Wilkinson]

I would expect the Chartering Organisations to have the full benefit of all further public comments before they issue there approvals.

CW


On 02 Dec 2015, at 20:52, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at actonline.org> wrote:

> Agree completely.
>  
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
> Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 2:30 PM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on CCWG-Accountability Proposal
>  
> I don’t support Nigel and Milton’s view that we need to finish the public comment before asking chartering orgs about their positions.
>  
> As our CCWG charter requires, we are now asking chartering orgs whether they support CCWG recommendations.  Anyone who is part of a chartering org (for example, Milton and I are part of GNSO), can voice their views and concerns within their chartering org to influence the chartering organization's position.   
>  
> Any individual, whether or not they are pat of a chartering org, could broadcast their concerns about the CCWG proposal so that could be considered by chartering orgs in their internal deliberations. 
>  
> For all these reasons, let’s continue to focus efforts on understanding concerns and questions raised by our chartering orgs, according to their own internal procedures and timelines.
>  
>  
> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>
> Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:55 PM
> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on CCWG-Accountability Proposal
>  
> 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
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d2610ac9/attachment-0001.html>