[CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on CCWG-Accountability Proposal
Nigel Roberts
nigel at channelisles.net
Thu Dec 3 16:14:26 UTC 2015
Greg
Interesting post.
Two observations.
1. We should not be rebuilding the flaps in-flight.
2. We need to allow the SOs to have the benefit of the general public's
input in its deliberations. It is wrong to say 'here's the proposal'
without allowing us to read the reactions to it. There may be (no I say
WILL be) intelligent and useful comment that will inform the debate
within the SO.
On 12/03/2015 04:09 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:directors at omadhina.net>"
> <directors at omadhina.net <mailto:directors at omadhina.net>>,
> "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
> 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>
> >> <mailto: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 <tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell)
> > PO Box 8421 \ /
> > Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> <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
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list