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

Thu Dec 3 18:00:50 UTC 2015

OK, this seems really helpful.

So we don't have to approve (or, quite possibly) disapprove of the Draft 
Proposal by Christmas?

On 12/03/2015 05:56 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
> All,
> in response to concerns raised by Greg and others: There is no intention
> whatsoever to prevent any individual or group from commenting. However,
> we would really like to encourage comment to be submitted in a
> concertated fashion via the Chartering Organizations. This will help
> avoid duplicate comments and will make comment analysis easier.
> Additionally, as was pointed out earlier approval from Chartering
> Organizations is critical in this phase. However, please note that we
> will proactively circle back to the Chartering Organizations as a CCWG
> in case public comment suggests that we need to make changes to our
> recommendations. Thus, the Chartering Organizations can be sure not to
> approve recommendations that are subject to change.
>
> Best regards,
> Mathieu, León and Thomas,
> ---
> rickert.net <http://rickert.net>
>
>
> Am 03.12.2015 um 18:50 schrieb Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> i believe that having made substantive changes to the plan, it had to go
>> out for another round of public comment.  And i think it has to
>> continually go out for public comment as long as we are making
>> substnative changes.
>>
>> I see no problem in getting the chartering members to consider the plan
>> before all the comments are in.  While I would not expect any to make
>> final decisions before all the comments were in, having them consider
>> the plan, and possibly even comment as chartering organizations, seems a
>> useful exercise.
>>
>> Of course, I also believe that any consideration must take the minority
>> dissenting views into account.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 03-Dec-15 09:45, 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>
>>> [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
>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>> Cc: directors at omadhina.net <mailto: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>
>>>> [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
>>>> <mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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>
>>>> [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>
>>>> <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>
>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf
>>>> of Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net
>>>> <mailto: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>
>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>"
>>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>>> <mailto: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>
>>>> <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
>>>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>