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

Roelof Meijer Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl
Thu Dec 3 15:29:39 UTC 2015


Normally, I hate disclaimers. Especially when they come from experts in
the legal profession ;)
But Jonathan, I love this one.
Thanks, something in my inbox that made me laugh!

With regard to the metaphor, I submit that normally, hunters suffer more
from mosquitos than their dogs
Or whatever

Cheers,

Roelof




On 03-12-15 16:13, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
behalf of Jonathan Zuck" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
on behalf of JZuck at actonline.org> wrote:

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



More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list