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

Thu Dec 3 16:09:57 UTC 2015

Bringing this thread back to its topic....

We are in the midst of a situation that is essentially an experiment -- a
simultaneous Public Comment period and [first?] Chartering Organization
review/support period.  Unfortunately, we have some unspecified parameters,
which is probably not good experimental design (unless this is really a
social experiment).

In particular, the relationships among (i) the Chartering Organization
review, (ii) the public comments generally, and (iii) possible public
comments from members and sub-organizations of the Chartering Organizations
are unspecified.

Indeed, the possibility (or not) of public comments from
members/sub-organizations of Chartering Organizations was not fully
resolved.

Focusing on this last point, there is more than one reasonable answer:

1. Public comments are completely open, and everybody participates as
normal, including members and suborganizations of Chartering Organizations
(COs).
2. As above, but comments from members and suborganizations of COs are
significantly discounted, as their primary path for input should be their
CO.
3. Public comments are not open to members or suborganizations of COs;
their input is limited to the process within their CO.

Whichever route we choose, we should be consistent, rather than just
letting things happen.  To take an example within GNSO, what if (a)
Stakeholder Group/Constituency (SG/C) A decides it is inappropriate for the
SG/C or its members to participate in public comment and guides all input
through the GNSO process, while (b) SG/C B decides it should not comment
but its members are free to do so (and even encouraged to do so), and (c)
SG/C C decides it is "business as usual."  As a result, the public comments
reflect (a) nothing from SG/C A, (b) no comments from SG/C B but a number
of comments from its members, and (c) a comment from SG/C C (representing
the consensus view of its membership) and a number of comments from its
members.  How do we evaluate that in the public comment period?  Is SG/C A
missing a big opportunity or is SG/C wasting everybody's time (including
its own)?  [Note: No one wants to waste time, and no one wants to miss an
opportunity, so we are on the horns of a dilemma....]

Another problem is defining who falls into the category of those who should
not (or must not) comment: All GAC members (does that extend to their
government as such?); all ccNSO members (what about non-ccNSO ccTLDs?); all
GNSO SG/Cs (but what about members of those SG/Cs, and what about members
of their members?); All ALAC members (but what about RALOs and local
structures and their members?); etc., etc.  Where do we draw the line?

As long as we are all playing by the same rules, I'm happy to play by those
rules.  But if each group is going to make up their own rules, then I would
want my constituency to make its views known anywhere they could be heard
(and anywhere they are needed to support or disagree with the views of
others similarly situated in the ICANN ecosystem).

Chartering Organization participants should not be in the position of
having to make individual judgment calls about whether it is appropriate to
make public comments.  CCWG and staff should not be in the position of
having to decide whether to discount certain public comments because they
came from "inside" (especially since that is an ill-defined universe).  We
need a unified approach to this problem.

So what do we do?????

Greg

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> Kavouss,
>
> I had no intention of slighting your country. I have great respect for
> the people and culture of Persia, one of the world's great civilisations.
> Ms. Gross comment was simply a critique of survey design. It had nothing to
> do with any so called "anti GAC" sentiment and your initial post itself was
> personally critical of "few persons" and certainly Ms. Gross herself. I
> honestly do not know how elections are conducted in your fine country, and
> although I certainly would not have phrased things as I did had I known you
> would take offence, I could not fathom how anyone could object to Ms.
> Gross attempt to correct a ballot malapropos that she believes defaults to
> a certain answer. I assumed your objection was cultural in nature. My
> apologies to you if it were not.
>
> As to your response, which referenced the murder of innocent people in
> criticising other countries, As I sit here in Paris working to prepare for
> concerts this weekend following the recent tragedy in this city, hopeful my
> body will not be riddled with bullet holes by Tuesday as industry
> colleagues of mine recently were, I take deep offence. I have sent an
> inquiry to  His Excellency Javad Kachoueian, Ambassador of Iran to my
> country of Ireland, referencing your post and asking whether that is an
> argumentative technique approved of by his government. Iff any response is
> received, I shall share it with you off-list.
>
> I commend you, Kavouss, on your exceptional contributions to the CCWG over
> the past year. I look forward to working with you on substantive matters
> going forward and, again, apologies for any personal slight you felt as as
>  result of my post.  That certainly was not my intent.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Edward Morris
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> *Sent*: Thursday, December 3, 2015 12:00 PM
> *To*: "el at lisse.NA" <el at lisse.NA>
> *Cc*: "directors at omadhina.net" <directors at omadhina.net>, "
> 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
>
> Dear Sir,
> I strongly object to your comments inappropriately referring to my country
> which I am proud of it.Mire strongly I categorically reject your illusion
> to "democratic ".
> If democratic country is the one that very often the people open fire to
> innocent people then I am happy that those thing never happened in my
> country.
> Moreover, we are dealing with issues in personal capacity without
> representing a given country. I do not understand your anti Iranian
> feelings.
> I respect all countries and their people .
> Pls refrain to refer to any country in CCWG process as we do not represent
> a country but a community.
> Sir, you de passed the limit if politeness, code of conduct and all
> international standards.
> I invite you to calm down, observe ICANN code of conducts Courtesy,
> friendship, and respect others .
> This us the last time that tolerate and if you and any other CCWG MEMBERS
> refer to my country then you will see the consequence of such inappropriate
> reference.
> Mr. Arasteh
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 3 Dec 2015, at 09:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.NA> wrote:
> >
> > My, My, My, are we getting testy.
> >
> > I thought Sadowsky's resentment was predetermined, but it seems the heat
> > is turning up.
> >
> > el
> >
> >
> >> On 2015-12-03 10:01, Edward Morris wrote:
> >> Hi Kavrous,
> >>
> >> I don't know how you do things in Iran, but in the democratic countries
> >> I've lived in we try to avoid ballots that default to predetermined
> >> choices. That whole integrity of the ballot thing.
> >>
> >> Thanks, Robin, for identifying and pointing out this software flaw.
> >> Hopefully it is something staff and / or our fine leadership team will
> >> be able to address in short order.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Ed Morris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Dec 3, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It is strange that the same person always comments on ST18.
> >>> There is an anti GAC sentiments in few persons members if CCWG
> >>> It is a pity to gave such reactions
> >>> Regards
> >>> Kavoysd
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> > [...]
> > --
> > Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
> > el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
> > PO Box 8421 \ /
> > Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151203/47224965/attachment-0001.html>