[CCWG-ACCT] Third Draft Proposal

[Barrack Otieno]

In agreement with Milton and Greg. We are getting there colleagues the
journey that remains is shorter than the one we have covered.
Constructive criticism is required at this point in time if we are to
end up with a good  product.

Regards<div id="DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><table
style="border-top: 1px solid #aaabb6; margin-top: 10px;">
	<tr>
		<td style="width: 105px; padding-top: 15px;">
			<a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail"
target="_blank"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/logo-avast-v1.png" style="width:
90px; height:33px;"/></a>
		</td>
		<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 20px; color: #41424e;
font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
line-height: 18px;">This email has been sent from a virus-free
computer protected by Avast. <br /><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
		</td>
	</tr>
</table><a href="#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1"
height="1"></a></div>

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> Every once in a while, I agree with Milton Mueller.  This is one of those
> times.
>
> I'm not sure how anyone can comment on and revise a draft document without
> being (constructively) critical.  It's also important to be transparent
> about the process, even if the transparency exposes some of the shortcomings
> of the process or the result (as a matter of fact, that is when transparency
> is most important).
>
> I'm not sure why anyone would see any negative intent in counsels' email.
> This email list is a workspace, after all, and this is what work looks like.
>
> Frankly, I'd be a lot more concerned if counsel did not reiterate important
> comments that were not incorporated in a prior draft.  Good counsel tells
> you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear.
>
> I think Rosemary and Holly did everything right in this instance.  I think
> the changes suggested were sensible, appropriate and consistent with my
> understanding of what we intended to say (i.e., our policy approach).  I was
> disappointed to see that some of these sensible (and as Milton said,
> important) changes were not made the first time around, and I join Milton in
> hoping they are incorporated this time.
>
> Greg Shatan
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Holly and Rosemary:
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear CCWG,  Co-Chairs and ICANN Staff,
>> It has been brought to our attention that our comments on the Third Draft
>> Proposal have been misunderstood by some to indicate that we are critical of
>> the Draft.  Our intent was simply to help to assure that the Final Proposal
>> is the highest quality reflection of the solid efforts of the CCWG to date
>> by pointing out where we thought some clarification would be helpful to an
>> unfamiliar reader and to the eventual bylaw drafting effort.
>>
>>
>>
>> MM: I do not think anyone suggested that your comments were critical of
>> the substance of the draft, or of the CCWG, or of anyone’s motives. You did,
>> however, point out that there was a need for clarification where the draft
>> may not have reflected the intent of the CCWG. You duly made some quite
>> reasonable suggestions to fix the problems. These suggestions were not
>> reflected in the draft. Those are simple facts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some of those changes were pretty important; e.g., changing “the interests
>> of the corporation”  to “the global public interest” determined via a bottom
>> up MS process.
>>
>>
>>
>> As you surely know, there is a major controversy on this list. Many of us
>> believe the co-chairs are responding to the time pressure (about which they
>> have legitimate concerns) by rushing things through to meet an arbitrary
>> date target and not giving due consideration to public comments or even to
>> the kind of changes you suggested. There’s no way around it: Rosemary’s
>> message pretty much confirmed those concerns. This doesn’t say anything
>> about motives and is not a personal criticism of anyone. It simply calls our
>> attention to the costs of rushing. So, thanks for reiterating your proposed
>> editorial changes and I hope they are incorporated this time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>
>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>
>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 
Barrack O. Otieno
+254721325277
+254-20-2498789
Skype: barrack.otieno
http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/