[CCWG-ACCT] Working methods

[Tijani BEN JEMAA]

Dear co-chairs,

 

I would like to express a general concern about our working methods:

 

1.       I do think that the work undertaken by the CCWG is too important
and will impact the future of ICANN and the Internet governance in general.
I do not think that under any circumstance, we should run after a deadline
even if it is imposed by a strong and valid reason because the result may
not meet the interest of ICANN as organization and its community as a whole.
I believe that our work should not be only done; it must be well done.  

 

During our work, we were pushed to work under very tight time, with several
conference calls a day (we did 12 hours calls in 24 hours, divided in 3
parts). The number of text proposal was so huge that it was impossible to
review and comment on them for a good participation; as a result, they do
not reflect the exact opinion of all members of the group.

 

This makes me wonder who may really participate and impact the decisions in
the group. Anyone who has another life than the CCWG one would definitely
not be able to actively participle and follow all the language drafted. So,
if you are not paid to do this work (by your government or by your company),
you will never manage to have an efficient participation.

 

Since we were asked by the NTIA to evaluate the time required to finish our
work, I was of the view that we have to take the necessary time for a well
debated and agreed result.

 

This doesn't mean the work done is not good: I would like here to thank very
much the 2 raporteurs Jordan and Beky for their hard work and time and also
the 3 co-Chairs for their continuous efforts for consensus building, but
some parts need more discussion and more clarity that couldn't be reached
because of the time constraint.

 

Finally, I do prefer stay with the NTIA stewardship rather than transit it
to the community without robust, clear, fair and workable accountability
mechanisms accepted by all the community components.

 

2.       As per our charter, only CCWG members participate in the decision
making process. Also, the decisions should be taken by consensus. I noticed
that when it was necessary to make a straw poll to get the temperature of
the group about an issue where there was no full consensus, it was done with
the participation of the whole people participating in the call, which
doesn't reflect the temperature of the members allowed to participate in the
decision making. This would be acceptable (and even preferable) if it is not
used as bases for finalizing the text to be submitted to public comment.  

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Executive Director

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)

Phone:  + 216 41 649 605

Mobile: + 216 98 330 114

Fax:       + 216 70 853 376

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

 

 

 



---
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150801/6d38028e/attachment.html>