[CCWG-ACCT] improve working methods for drafting of reports issued in name of CCWG - ACCT
avri at acm.org
Tue Jan 12 18:01:51 UTC 2016
While I agree that they should listen to participants as well, the
members, especially when they are in consensus, are the ones who need to
defend this stuff to their respective communities. As we approach the
end game of WS1, we need to make sure that the members can defend the
work we have all been doing and the output we come out with.
On 12-Jan-16 12:25, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> Actually it's Members and Participants who are excluded, not just
> the Members.
> But then participation would interfere with the Co-Chair(s)...
> On 2016-01-12 18:17 , Robin Gross wrote:
>> One issue that has been troubling me for some time is 'how are
>> decisions made to accept some edits and reject others in the
>> The recording of the call between the lawyers and the co-chairs
>> <https://community.icann.org/x/15dlAw> indicated that staff is
>> handling the edits and making the decisions about which edits to
>> accept and which to reject. We need a better process for managing
>> the editing of reports.
>> Like the lawyers, Members who proposed important edits to the
>> document were disappointed to find out (after the document was
>> published) that many of these edits were rejected and we don’t
>> know why. At some point, this report is no longer a report of the
>> Members, especially given the vague “black box” process for
>> staff to accept or reject Members’ edits to the draft.
>> If staff can be allowed to continue to draft and decide which
>> words go into the report, then we should at least be provided with
>> a rationale from them to explain *why* Members’ edits are being
>> rejected from our report.
>> We need a much more transparent and responsive process for the
>> drafting and publishing of reports that go out in our name. I am
>> simply not comfortable with this vague secretive "black box"
>> process that removes decisional authority from the Members.
>> Please don’t give me another silly argument about the timeline.
>> That is no excuse for the staff to over-rule Members on the
>> content of the report. CCWG needs to improve this process before
>> another report is issued in our name.
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community