[CCWG-ACCT] Minority Reports

Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Jul 30 06:16:36 UTC 2015

Thanks, that is very reassuring.  Those of you who are living this 
process day in day out may underestimate how hard it is for those who 
arrive at the proposal cold, to get up to speed.  Jumping in to 
transcripts at any given point is, I can testify, more alarming than 
Kind regards.

On 2015-07-30 2:09, Drazek, Keith wrote:
> Hi Stephanie,
> The second public comment period will run for 40 days. The CCWG has 
> already taken community feedback into account from the first public 
> comment period, from public sessions in Buenos Aires, from written 
> feedback from the Board and the GAC, and from our recent face-to-face 
> meeting in Paris. It will do so again following the second public 
> comment period. Forty days should be sufficient time for all ICANN 
> groups and interested parties to consider the proposal and give 
> informed comment. The CCWG wants lots of public comments, and is not 
> afraid. :-)
> I think it's also important to note the proposal currently under 
> discussion changes nothing about ICANN's day-to-day, month-to-month, 
> or even year-to-year operations and community engagement structures. 
> Only in very rare cases would the proposed Sole Member community 
> empowerment model come into play. In my opinion, its existence would 
> be a powerful deterrent to bad behavior and would therefore become an 
> available but largely unneeded tool.
> While the anticipated model establishes important checks and balances 
> and shared authority through a community empowerment mechanism, with 
> an escalation path to enforce them, it otherwise doesn't structurally 
> change ICANN at all. I hope and expect this will become more clear 
> once the proposal is posted for the next round of public consideration 
> and comment.
> I acknowledge there is more work to be done around the vote balance 
> issue (as I said in an earlier email), but I'm confident we can 
> resolve the issue satisfactorily following the receipt of additional 
> community feedback.
> Regards,
> Keith
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 30, 2015, at 4:03 AM, Stephanie Perrin 
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>> As one of the folks who does not have the massive amount of time 
>> required to participate in these important negotiations, but is 
>> nevertheless very interested, may I submit the following:
>> 1.  I agree with Chris, this is a point of fundamental fairness.  
>> Slow down.
>> 2.  As I think it was George S has said, there is never time to do it 
>> right, but always time to do it over.  Why not negotiate for more 
>> time to complete the report?
>> 3.  I agree with many of the points that Ed Morris has recently 
>> raised, and am truly alarmed at all the proposed structural changes 
>> that are being bandied about, without really profound discussion at 
>> the community level.  I am afraid you are going to get a lot of 
>> comments.  Please allow enough time for the public to read and 
>> decipher the report, and draft their own thoughtful responses.
>> Thanks to you all for the prodigious amount of work you have done.
>> Stephanie Perrin
>> On 2015-07-29 20:05, Chris LaHatte wrote:
>>> As I see it, one of the important results of this debate is that we 
>>> try to achieve consensus. It is also apparent that there is 
>>> considerable interest in filing minority reports. But the deadline 
>>> for doing so appears to be very tight, and I am not sure of the 
>>> rationale for doing so. There is always a need for an appropriate 
>>> amount of time to properly draft a dissenting report. In my view it 
>>> would be unfortunate if those who wish to file minority reports were 
>>> excluded by a timetable which prohibited proper consideration. I 
>>> raise this as an issue of fairness, and wonder if it is possible to 
>>> extend this out a little further.
>>> Regards
>>> Chris LaHatte
>>> Ombudsman
>>> Blog https://omblog.icann.org/
>>> Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>> Confidentiality
>>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as 
>>> confidential. The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps 
>>> necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those 
>>> parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the 
>>> Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise 
>>> staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a 
>>> complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.  
>>> The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure 
>>> that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and 
>>> identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential 
>>> nature of such information, except as necessary to further the 
>>> resolution of a complaint
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 
>> <mailto: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/20150730/a67d81e4/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list