[CCWG-ACCT] The CCWG and external self-interest

Wed Jan 6 19:25:43 UTC 2016

Hello George,

Your email raises two issues for me: 1. Below, are you simply arguing that
organizations (and perhaps you can include individuals in it as well) can
NOT represent their own organizations and can only represent their ICANN
constituency ? I am not a veteran but as far as I know everyone, being a
part of a constituency or not can file a public comment at ICANN! and  if
there are discrepancies in the interpretation of those comments they can
speak up!

 "Brett is arguing below that it is the Heritage Foundation's position that
> must be noted as part of the record.  In other words, Brett openly is a
> representative of the Heritage Foundation, and NOT the ICANN constituency
> from where he came.

2.  I am wondering what you mean by "least personally annoying" !  You put
us in little boxes : annoying, less annoying too annoying? and I really
wanna know what you mean by Annoying! you mean the ones that speak up and
argue against what you think is right?

Thank you

On 6 January 2016 at 20:07, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:

> Heritage Foundation is an NCUC/NCSG member in good standing and has every
> right to advocate for its position, which is a constituent position of the
> NCSG consensus.
>
> Its outrageous that a board member would even contemplate taking a
> position that would logically taken to its conclusion would seek to
> minimise or reject the views of a constituent of the ICANN community.
> I seriously hope you will retract this message George, as its not
> representative of the high standards you generally display as a veteran of
> the ICANN board.
>
> -James Gannon
>
> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
> Date: Wednesday 6 January 2016 at 6:58 p.m.
> To: ICANN Board <icann-board at icann.org>, Accountability Cross Community <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] The CCWG and external self-interest
>
> Folks,
>
> Brett Schaefer is one of the least personally annoying people on the
> CCWG.  However, this message of his displays openly what is happening.
>
> Brett is arguing below that it is the Heritage Foundation's position that
> must be noted as part of the record.  In other words, Brett openly is a
> representative of the Heritage Foundation, and NOT the ICANN constituency
> from where he came.  I don't know which one, but it really doesn't matter.
>
> Many of the CCWG members seem to be representing their personal points of
> view, or justifying it on the basis of congruence with their own external
> organization rather than on the basis of positions within their internal
> ICANN constituency that they represent.
>
> To the extent that this is happening, it's just outrageous There is no
> other word for it.
>
> George
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *"Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
> *Subject: **Re: [CCWG-ACCT] On behalf of Co-Chairs - Public comment
> summary/analysis*
> *Date: *January 6, 2016 at 11:44:06 AM EST
> *To: *Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>, "
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>
>
> Alice,
>
>
>
> Thank you for this. The Heritage Foundation’s opposition to full GAC
> participation in the empowered community was not noted in the Rec 1
> analysis. As stated in our comment, we think that GAC should be strictly
> advisory.
>
>
>
> On Rec 7 analysis, I’m concerned that our position may be misunderstood.
> We support including DIDP in an appeals process, but we are very much
> against restricting it to the engagement, escalation, and enforcement
> staircase because that process is dependent on the Empowered Community.
> DIDP appeals need to be accessible to everyone, not just the SOACs, and
> appeals should not require SOAC approval at any threshold. This may require
> moving DIDP appeals to the request for reconsideration process.
>
>
>
> On Rec 11, the one sentence summary gives the impression that we support
> Rec 11. We do not and offered specific proposals on how to change the text
> to address our concerns, which were not included in the Rec 11 analysis.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Brett
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> BrettSchaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security
> and Foreign Policy
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org
>
>
> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alice
> Jansen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 06, 2016 9:04 AM
> *To:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] On behalf of Co-Chairs - Public comment
> summary/analysis
>
>
>
> *On behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs*
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Attached to this email you will find a staff produced summary and analysis
> of the public comments received on our Draft Proposal.
>
> In preparation for our January discussions, we encourage you to read the
> document as well as comments available for full reference at:
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/.
> Note: a *download all* page is available at
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984613
>
> Please note that we cannot convert the spreadsheet into a PDF, the tabs
> and spreadsheet being too large. Thank you for your understanding.
>
> Staff will post the summary on the public forum box on Friday, 8 January -
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en.
> In the meantime, it is located on your wiki at
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984613
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Mathieu, Thomas, León
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160106/42ff87d8/attachment.html>