[CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on CCWG-Accountability Proposal
Nigel Roberts
nigel at channelisles.net
Wed Dec 2 22:46:14 UTC 2015
> I don’t support Nigel and Milton’s view that we need to finish the public comment before asking chartering orgs about their positions.
That's a misrepresentation and a misunderstanding.
The Chartering Organisations were already asked some time back.
But you can't expect us to have a position before we see the finished
Proposal in writing. And it changed FUNDAMENTALLY as recently as Dublin.
But, and this is really important, it is necessary to receive all public
comments before reaching a considered view.
The SOs need ALL The CCWG input. This is a fundamental due process thing.
If you keep any part of your work from the Chartering Organisations,
whether it is by
(a) incorrectly claiming there is consensus and then later 'dynamically'
updating the documents without a formally notifed Amendment to the
Deposited Draft, OR,
(b) insist on a response without sufficient notice to take into account
all input such as the Public Comments, then there is (if ICANN were a
public body - which of course it is not) "procedural unfairness" which,
if done in the UK by a government department would render the whole
process susceptible to legal challeneg (judicial review)
And I'm beginning to think this is around 50% intentional.
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list