[CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report
Nigel Roberts
nigel at channelisles.net
Mon Nov 30 17:31:06 UTC 2015
Seun
There is no practical way anyone in the Chartering Organisations can
have followed even a scintilla of this insane process.
We (the chartering organisations) appoint Members. That's representative
democracy.
You and I are mere participants, are we not, and I think we owe it to
the process (such as remains of it) not to try and tell the Members how
to do the job they were appointed to do.
I shall, at least, refrain, from that (much as I would like to).
On 30/11/15 16:23, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu
> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
>
> FWIW, Robin’s dissent is fully in line with the official comments
> submitted by the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group during the last
> public comment period.
>
>
> SO: Thats fine, especially if the NCSG still believes that the concerns
> raised during the second public comment has still not been addressed.
> Therefore, I would expect some of the wordings of Robin's mail to be
> written with a "collective" sense to it (e.g "..Additionally, *I* object
> to...", would have read "...Additionally, *We* object to...") or there
> should be a line/footer indicating that the "individual" view has been
> endorsed by the NCSG or even by the GNSO (if applicable as NCSG is not
> solely a chartering organization per-see[1])
>
> My goal is not to determine whether a minority statement is right or
> wrong, my main point is that we ensure individual opinions are clearly
> differentiated from Chartering organization opinions as the document is
> expected to communicate to those who may not have been following this
> process. This is somewhat our last shot and it should communicate
> intent as much as possible.
>
> Regards
> 1. https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter
>
> ____
>
> --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 *Robin Gross
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 29, 2015 6:41 PM
> *To:* Thomas Rickert
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> Community
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report____
>
> __ __
>
> Thanks, Thomas. See below.____
>
> __ __
>
> *Dissenting Opinion of Member Robin Gross (GNSO-NSCG)*____
>
> __ __
>
> The CCWG-Accountability make a number of helpful recommendations to
> improve organizational accountability at ICANN, however one aspect
> of the plan is deeply flawed: changing the role of ICANN's
> Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) from purely an “advisory” role
> to a “decision making” role over fundamental matters at ICANN,
> including its governance. Consequently the proposal marginalizes
> the role of Supporting Organizations (SO’s) compared to today’s
> ICANN governance structure. The degree of governmental empowerment
> over ICANN resulting from the proposal’s community mechanism is
> dangerous to the success of the proposal’s political acceptance as
> well as to its ultimate impact on a free and open Internet.____
>
> __ __
>
> The creation of a community mechanism to hold ICANN accountable on
> key issues made a critical error by departing from the existing
> power balance between SO’s and AC’s as determined by relative board
> appointments. Instead, the proposed community mechanism elevates
> the AC’s relative to the SO’s compared with today’s balance on
> ICANN's board of directors, which does not currently provide a
> decision making role to GAC, and which retains the primacy of the
> Supporting Organizations on key decisions, particularly those within
> the SO’s mandate. The devaluing of the Supporting Organizations in
> ICANN’s key decisions was a common theme in both previous public
> comment periods, however the recommendations not only failed to
> address this widespread concern, but went even further in devaluing
> SO’s in the community mechanism in the 3rd report. The community
> mechanism failed to take into account the appropriate roles and
> responsibilities of the various SO’s and AC’s, and the dangers
> inherent in changing those roles with a “one size fits all” approach
> to critical decision making. ____
>
> __ __
>
> Additionally, I object to the proposed departure from ICANN’s
> typical 30-day public comment period on the 3rd report for
> CCWG-Accountability. The 3rd report’s public comment only allows
> for 9 days of public comment after the language translations are
> scheduled to be published, which is far too short of a public
> comment period for a report of this significance and with so many
> important changes since previous drafts.____
>
> __ __
>
> Robin Gross____
>
> __ __
>
> On Nov 29, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net
> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>> wrote:____
>
> __ __
>
> Dear Robin,____
>
> as discussed during the last CCWG call, minority statements will
> be included in the report as appendices if and when they are
> received.____
>
> __ __
>
> Best,____
>
> Thomas ____
>
> __ __
>
> ---____
>
> rickert.net <http://rickert.net/>____
>
> __ __
>
>
> Am 29.11.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>:____
>
> Dear Co-Chairs,
>
> I have still not received a response to this request. What
> is the process for submitting minority statements? Please
> advise.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
>
> ____
>
> On Nov 11, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Robin Gross
> <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
> wrote:____
>
> __ __
>
> Dear Co-Chairs,____
>
> __ __
>
> Could you please advise on the proposed schedule and
> process for ensuring that minority statements will be
> included in the report [of the executive summary]?____
>
> __ __
>
> Thank you,____
>
> Robin____
>
> ___________________________________________________
>
> 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
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
> Mobile: +2348035233535
> //alt email:<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>/
>
> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your
> action!
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list