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

[Stephanie Perrin]

I would like to strongly support Farzaneh's request (below).  For those 
of us trying to follow onlist, this is extremely important.
Stephanie Perrin
GNSO Councillor

On 2016-01-12 10:30, James Gannon wrote:
> 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.orghttps://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
> + 44 771 247 2987
> <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> 
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160112/654c3eb6/attachment-0001.html>