[CCWG-ACCT] Minority statement review process (Was Re: Minority Statements)

[Seun Ojedeji]

Dear Thomas,

Thanks a lot for your response. That's helpful.

Regards
On 1 Aug 2015 4:01 pm, "Thomas Rickert" <rickert at anwaelte.de> wrote:

> Dear Seun,
> we will make no distinction between minority statements from members or
> from participants.
>
> Providing the opportunity to individuals that are dissatisfied with our
> results as a whole or in part will help the community assess our work.
>
> The statements are primarily to inform the community, but they may also
> influence individuals in our group to change their mind and support another
> solution.
>
> There is no plan by the co-chairs to respond to individual statement.
> Should there be the wish by individuals to comment on minority statements,
> we recommend you do this via a public comment.
>
> Kind regards,
> Thomas
>
>
> ---
> rickert.net
>
>
> Am 01.08.2015 um 16:08 schrieb Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:
>
> That's fine, I understand participants may not write minority statements
> directly based on the charter. However participants who have
> representatives could write and have it's member representative forward
> accordingly (that's what I meant by me writing).
> I will wait for the Co-Chairs to respond to my question of whether there
> is anything else they will do on minority statements received during public
> comments period other than adding it to the report. The charter did not
> specify that.
>
> Regards
> On 1 Aug 2015 2:01 pm, "Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <el at lisse.na> wrote:
>
>> Members and Participants are treated differently by the Charter.
>>
>> el
>>
>> --
>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
>>
>>
>> On Aug 1, 2015, at 13:36, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Co-Chairs,
>>
>> I understand that minority statements are allowed. However may I know how
>> the group intend to respond to those statements. Will they be addressed
>> along side comments received from public comment after the closure of the
>> current PC? Or they will not be addressed but included as part of the
>> annexes in the final documents?
>>
>> I am asking because I personally find a few sections of Edward's minority
>> statements unacceptable, which could actually trigger a minority statement
>> from me as well depending on how this CCWG intends to handle minority
>> statements.
>>
>> Regards
>> On 1 Aug 2015 1:11 pm, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> About twenty minutes ago I submitted directly to the Chairs, per the
>>> instructions given to us by Thomas in his email of 29 July, two minority
>>> statements for (hopefully) inclusion in the report about to be released for
>>> public comment. I had not intended to file any minority statement but, upon
>>> reflection, two aspects of our proposal caused me concern.
>>>
>>> The statements are attached here for community inspection and review.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Edward Morris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150801/6f9be4d4/attachment.html>