[CCWG-ACCT] Third Draft Proposal

[Paul Rosenzweig]

Exactly right Milton – but I am sure that the plea for more time will fall on deaf ears.  S

 

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

 <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016> 

 

From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton at gatech.edu] 
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 9:51 PM
To: Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory at sidley.com>; Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community at icann.org) <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>; Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>; Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>; ACCT-Staff <acct-staff at icann.org>
Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>; ICANN-Adler <ICANN at adlercolvin.com>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Third Draft Proposal

 

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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151222/a0a4b1ec/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2849 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151222/a0a4b1ec/image003-0001.png>