[CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request

[Phil Corwin]

In regard to:

I would suggest that these fine Congresspeople aren't looking to develop their position, they more likely are looking for information to buttress it. As we now know this is a wide ranging study involving many interested parties then, yes, I would agree that our co-chairs should participate. However I'd suggest they should not do so hoping to convince anyone of anything but rather should, as has been suggested, merely provide procedural information rather than any information of substance or opinion.

Your presumption that members of Congress are not susceptible to moderating their views based upon factual analysis generated in regard to their concerns is contrary to my experience.

In any event the GAO report should be publicly available in which case the facts and analysis will be available to those with divergent points of view.


Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Edward Morris
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 6:36 PM
To: Chris Disspain
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request

Hi Chris,


I get that some people are concerned in the way you have expressed. What I’m not clear about is ‘what is the fear?’. We have 3 very experienced people chairing the CCWG. What are we concerned that they’ll do?

Chris

As more information has become available about the study the less pensive I am about it. It obviously is a much wider and more encompassing study than we alerted to at the start of this thread. I certainly have complete confidence in the knowledge and intent of our co-chairs. However...

My concern is more about linguistics and culture. We have had misunderstandings during this process which have been attributed to bad word choice or poor selection of communication vehicle. That shouldn't be a problem if this were more of a European style government inquiry, a U.K. style White Paper for example. Linguistic errors and misunderstandings are easily corrected in nonpartisan studies. However, having worked for a period on The Hill I can tell you that all G.A.O. studies are not created equal. Yes, you can use them to find 'the truth', such as it is, in an unbiased way. You can also use them to get data to buttress the position you have already decided you want to have. It perhaps shouldn't be that way but at times it is.

Requester Mike Kelly was the author of the Defending Internet Freedom Act of 2014. Requesters  Blackburn, Shimkus and Rokita were all co-sponsors of the DOTCOM Act. I would suggest that these fine Congresspeople aren't looking to develop their position, they more likely are looking for information to buttress it. As we now know this is a wide ranging study involving many interested parties then, yes, I would agree that our co-chairs should participate. However I'd suggest they should not do so hoping to convince anyone of anything but rather should, as has been suggested, merely provide procedural information rather than any information of substance or opinion.

Ed
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.5856 / Virus Database: 4315/9393 - Release Date: 03/27/15
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150331/57b0ee81/attachment.html>