<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">One issue that has been troubling me for some time is 'how are decisions made to accept some edits and reject others in the report?’ </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The recording of the <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/15dlAw" class="">call between the lawyers and the co-chairs</a> 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. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks,</div><div class="">Robin</div></body></html>