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

Thu Dec 3 15:13:30 UTC 2015

Well, if we're going to carry metaphors to their extreme, I would suggest that, at this point, to the community, the chartering orgs are our "dogs in the hunt" where we should be placing our emphasis and comments coming in from community members, from whom we have already heard and whose arguments have already been discussed represent the mosquitos that will have the CCWG needlessly "chasing its tail."

PC Disclaimer:
None of the metaphors above are meant to impugn the intellectual integrity of any members of the CCWG or the broader internet community, nor are they meant to express support for the sport of hunting or the use of dogs in any inhumane activity. Furthermore, it is not the intention of the commenter to hint that members of the CCWG are dogs or to shame dogs through a comparison to the CCWG. Finally, the above comment is meant as humor, however weak, and any offense is purely unintentional.

-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 10:01 AM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on CCWG-Accountability Proposal

Who is the tail here, and who the dog?

On 12/03/2015 02:45 PM, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
> I agree completely and according to our charter, we are at the point in our PROCESS where we take our proposal to the chartering organizations. It is only weak mindedness on our part that has led to any public comment at this juncture and we run the risk of letting the tail wag the dog, so to speak, thereby derailing our PROCESS.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of 
> Dr Eberhard W Lisse
> Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 2:07 AM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Cc: directors at omadhina.net
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on 
> CCWG-Accountability Proposal
>
> Process matters.
>
> el
>
> On 2015-12-03 06:20, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
>> It is simply the case that at SOME point this is supposed to go to 
>> the chartering orgs as they are the ultimate decision makers. The 
>> HUGE majority of public comments come from WITHIN this community. 
>> Either we are able to operate as a community or we are not. 
>> Continuously throwing the same arguments over the transom because we 
>> feel like we get a better platform than we do working within the 
>> community has stopped entirely from being productive. I'm having the 
>> same argument inside the IPC, by the way. The primary use of public 
>> comments should be to generate new ideas not create ONE MORE round of 
>> repetitive comments that require the attention of the CCWG (for 
>> responding to which you go on to criticize the CCWG, of course, if 
>> they aren't comments YOU feel are important). At this point, 
>> additional public comments from within the community only serve to 
>> make people feel more important than they are within that community. 
>> Now is the time to lobby within the GNSO to see changes you still 
>> want made and to compromise if you fail. Anything else is simply 
>> intellectual...er, gymnastics... and to defend it in the name of process is disingenuous at best.
>>
>>
>>
>> Frankly, I'd like to see these measures actually go into effect. I'd 
>> like to stop the incredible mission creep we're getting at the end of 
>> this process because folks feel like they have leverage. If everyone 
>> is so concerned that WS2 isn't going to happen then we have simply 
>> failed at WS1 as that was the whole point: to put the community in 
>> charge of their own destiny in terms of reform...not to get every pet 
>> issue handled in WS1. And yes, the timeline probably DOES matter 
>> politically in the US. We can't let this go on forever. There isn't 
>> going to be a version of this with which everyone is completely happy 
>> so at some point, we need to go to the chartering orgs and see if they can live with it.
>> There really shouldn't be ANY public comment at this point but 
>> process demands we leave a window open for those who are 
>> unrepresented. I don't need to read another public comment from 
>> within the community and do a whole new spreadsheet treating it on equal footing with the GNSO. It ain't.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, to be specific I think there's a danger of letting this drag on 
>> much longer in terms of the politics in DC. I also see very little 
>> upside to holding an entire public comment period prior to getting 
>> feedback from the chartering orgs. As such it's hard to compare the 
>> pros and cons here but we have heard from he public and a fairly 
>> significant way and gone a long way to address the concerns that have 
>> been raised. It ain't perfect and it's not going to be. That said, if 
>> we've done our job right, we have the ability to continue to reform 
>> the organization regardless of the makeup of the board and the 
>> responsibility will fall on the community to do so.
>>
>> J
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf 
>> Of *Mueller, Milton L
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 2, 2015 7:23 PM
>> *To:* Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>; 
>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on 
>> CCWG-Accountability Proposal
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve:
>>
>> Your arguments make no sense. You say because we _/can/_ voice some 
>> views that will, possibly (and possibly not), diffuse into our own 
>> chartering org in a couple of weeks that we therefore _/should/_ do 
>> it this way. In other words, it is clear that your only concern is to 
>> compress the timeline. You have not provided a single reason why this 
>> needs to be done and what will be gained or lost if we don't do it 
>> that way.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am sick of this kind of argumentation. Attempts to compress the 
>> timeline at the expense of the accuracy, thoroughness and legitimacy 
>> of the process have been criticized by virtually everyone except for 
>> the handful of people, like you, who are responsible for foisting 
>> this procedure on us.
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you going to change this or do you want me, and about a dozen 
>> other people, to start directly attacking the legitimacy of your process?
>>
>>
>>
>> --MM
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf 
>> of Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net 
>> <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:55 PM
>> *To: *"accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>"
>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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