[CCWG-ACCT] re-iterating the request for transparent communication!

[James Gannon]

Agreed I am starting to have serious concerns over our approach to this at this stage, we are neglecting key inputs in the name of timelines and doing so in a non-transparent manner.
Particularly when it comes to the work of our legal counsel its imperative that we remember that the CCWG is the client here and that anything major with regards to dismissal or non-consideration of input from our lawyers must be a decision taken by the CCWG and not in a vacuum.

-jg

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
Date: Tuesday 12 January 2016 at 1:43 p.m.
To: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] re-iterating the request for transparent communication!

I would like to support this request.  I find it troubling that comments on the proposal by the CCWG's counsel are not being taken into account.

Matthew

On 12/01/2016 08:03, farzaneh badii wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs, All

Previously, I requested for a transparent public communication channel which allowed everyone to have access to communication between Staff, Co-chairs and others, especially when drafting the proposal. It was not taken into consideration. No public channel was provided for such communication. This would have prevented alot of speculations.

Now listening to what CCWG lawyers have to say about not including their comments in the drafts of CCWG proposal (here is the link to lawyers concerns https://community.icann.org/x/15dlAw ) which might be just due to a total oversight, I was wondering if I could ask for two things:

1. Please make a public communication channel for co-chair communication with Staff, communication among staff, and any communication that has an effect on drafting the proposal.

2. The lawyers in this call stated that some of their comments were requested to be posted,including some that were sent on Sunday, but they have not been. Can you please clarify which comments and why they have not been posted and if it is an oversight I would like to request all their comments that have not been posted to be posted as soon as possible.

Best

--
Farzaneh



_______________________________________________
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


--

Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology
mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
+ 44 771 247 2987

[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/logo-avast-v1.png]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>    This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160112/d00bd8a4/attachment.html>