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

Thu Jan 7 15:39:34 UTC 2016

Dear All,
In my humble  opinion,evry and all views are more than welcome as it is
within the Framework of multistakeholder approach. It provide richness and
trigger debates , discussions which could  results to improvemne. There
should be no barrier nor obstable on who raised it.ICANN Community is a
democratic one and every body free to raise its issues. IF INTERNET HAS
DEVELOPPED AS IT IS TODAY, THANKS TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSING VIEWS, IDEAS
COMMENRTS ,
Let us maintain this golden rule
Regards
KAVOUSS

2016-01-07 14:43 GMT+01:00 Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>:

> George,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the apology. However, on your larger point, I disagree. I
> don’t see the problem with individuals, businesses, or other organizations
> submitting their views through public comments. I thought that that was the
> essence of the multi-stakeholder process – to welcome, debate, and
> incorporate a variety of views to arrive at a position that reflects the
> broader ICANN community.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Brett
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Brett Schaefer
> 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:* George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 06, 2016 4:33 PM
> *To:* Schaefer, Brett
> *Cc:* ICANN Board; Accountability Cross Community
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The CCWG and external self-interest
>
>
>
> Brett,
>
>
>
> I want to start by saying that I have no problem with your participation
> in the CCWG.  We've interacted personally in a work group in Dublin, and I
> found you to be a good and fair collaborator.  Your contributions to the
> list have been articulate and positive.
>
>
>
> What I find really bothersome is that some of the positions expressed,
> often emotional and unfair ones such as the recent comment asking which
> human rights ICANN did not want to respect, seem to be based strictly upon
> the CCWG members pique and their biases, and not at all related to any
> position that their constituency might be willing to support.
>
>
>
> My point is more of a macro point.  I have no problem with clarification
> of public comments, or of assuring that they are all taken into account.
> What I have a problem with is CCWG members speaking not for their
> constituencies but for their own personal interests or the specific
> interests of their external organizations, rather than for the point of
> view of  the constituencies from which they come.
>
>
>
> If you were simply pointing out that it was, among others, the comments
> from your organization that were not captured, then I misunderstood, and I
> apologize.  If you were saying that you want to put this comment in because
> it comes from the organization you work for, that is a different matter.
> I'm glad that you clarified that you took the former position, not the
> latter.  I saw your post as pushing your employer's views, and I apparently
> misunderstood.
>
>
>
> But the larger point still stands.  Out of the current 6,000 posts to the
> list that I've retained, there have been a significant number that I
> believe represent personal points of view rather than constituency points
> of view.  AFAIK all constituencies are sufficiently heterogeneous that
> there exist multiple points of view, many of which oppose each other.  I
> would hope that CCWG members would be sufficiently judicious that they
> would not let themselves be swayed by their personal beliefs to bias their
> contributions to the process, and that they would recognize this
> multiplicity of views within their constituency as well as in others.
>
>
>
> In addition, there have been repeated posts that spoke derogatorily of
> what they believe are the Board's intentions without any knowledge of
> actual facts or attempts at direct dialogue.  You are not one of the people
> who does this.   However, one result of this tendency is that the Board has
> become a punching bag for these people, and the behavior perpetuates itself
> in part because there is little if any pushback to these posts.   It's not
> appreciated, it's counterproductive, it is irritating, and it contributes
> to the enlargement of a divide between groups which should be working
> together.   Yet I have seen no sign whatsoever that their constituencies
> are concerned about this, or that there is any attempt to reprimand or
> change the behavior of their representatives.  Is their behavior condoned
> by their constituency?  I hope not.
>
>
>
> For a bunch of reasons, some historical, the culture surrounding this
> accountability exercise has acquired a component of "us vs. them."  It has
> been divisive and has contributed IMO to a weakening and a lengthening of
> the effectiveness of the process.  While this has nothing to do with my
> reaction to your post, it may explain the extent of my frustration in
> trying to engage constructively with the process.
>
>
>
> So in summary, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.  However, I do welcome
> this opportunity provided to share some observations of the CCWG process.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 6, 2016, at 2:21 PM, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> George,
>
>
>
> I’m confused. My e-mail was directly related to and sought to clarify the
> summary of public comments/analysis circulated by Alice, which included the
> public comment by Heritage. That summary includes public comments by a
> number of individuals and organizations. Is it your position that none of
> those comments should be included?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Brett
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Brett* *Schaefer*
>
> * 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 *George
> Sadowsky
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 06, 2016 1:59 PM
> *To:* ICANN Board; Accountability Cross Community
> *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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Brett* *Schaefer*
>
> * 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160107/5383d27e/attachment-0001.html>