<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Every once in a while, I agree with Milton Mueller. This is one of those times.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'm not sure how anyone can comment on and revise a draft document without being (constructively) critical. It's also important to be transparent about the process, even if the transparency exposes some of the shortcomings of the process or the result (as a matter of fact, that is when transparency is most important).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'm not sure why anyone would see any negative intent in counsels' email. This email list is a workspace, after all, and this is what work looks like. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Frankly, I'd be a lot more concerned if counsel did not reiterate important comments that were not incorporated in a prior draft. Good counsel tells you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I think Rosemary and Holly did everything right in this instance. I think the changes suggested were sensible, appropriate and consistent with my understanding of what we intended to say (i.e., our policy approach). I was disappointed to see that some of these sensible (and as Milton said, important) changes were not made the first time around, and I join Milton in hoping they are incorporated this time.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg Shatan</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Mueller, Milton L <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Dear Holly and Rosemary:<u></u><u></u></span></p><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in">Dear CCWG, Co-Chairs and ICANN Staff,<br>
It has been brought to our attention that our comments on the Third Draft Proposal have been misunderstood by some to indicate that we are critical of the Draft. Our intent was simply to help to assure that the Final Proposal is the highest quality reflection
of the solid efforts of the CCWG to date by pointing out where we thought some clarification would be helpful to an unfamiliar reader and to the eventual bylaw drafting effort.<span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">MM: I do not think anyone suggested that your comments were critical of the substance of the draft, or of the CCWG, or of anyone’s motives. You did, however, point out that there was a need for clarification
where the draft may not have reflected the intent of the CCWG. You duly made some quite reasonable suggestions to fix the problems. These suggestions were not reflected in the draft. Those are simple facts.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Some of those changes were pretty important; e.g., changing “the interests of the corporation” to “the global public interest” determined via a bottom up MS process.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">As you surely know, there is a major controversy on this list. Many of us believe the co-chairs are responding to the time pressure (about which they have legitimate concerns) by rushing things through to meet
an arbitrary date target and not giving due consideration to public comments or even to the kind of changes you suggested. There’s no way around it: Rosemary’s message pretty much confirmed those concerns. This doesn’t say anything about motives and is not
a personal criticism of anyone. It simply calls our attention to the costs of rushing. So, thanks for reiterating your proposed editorial changes and I hope they are incorporated this time.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Dr. Milton L. Mueller<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Professor, School of Public Policy<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Georgia Institute of Technology<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>