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

[Stephen Deerhake]

+1 to Nigel's comment.  Do not expect the ccNSO to rush to judgement on this
proposal.


-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel
Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 5:46 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.


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.
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community