[CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on CCWG-Accountability Proposal

[Mueller, Milton L]

Steve:
Your arguments make no sense. You say because we _can_ voice some views that will, possibly (and possibly not), diffuse into our own chartering org in a couple of weeks that we therefore _should_ do it this way. In other words, it is clear that your only concern is to compress the timeline. You have not provided a single reason why this needs to be done and what will be gained or lost if we don’t do it that way.

I am sick of this kind of argumentation. Attempts to compress the timeline at the expense of the accuracy, thoroughness and legitimacy of the process have been criticized by virtually everyone except for the handful of people, like you, who are responsible for foisting this procedure on us.

Are you going to change this or do you want me, and about a dozen other people, to start directly attacking the legitimacy of your process?

--MM

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 2:30 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on CCWG-Accountability Proposal

I don’t support Nigel and Milton’s view that we need to finish the public comment before asking chartering orgs about their positions.

As our CCWG charter requires, we are now asking chartering orgs whether they support CCWG recommendations.  Anyone who is part of a chartering org (for example, Milton and I are part of GNSO), can voice their views and concerns within their chartering org to influence the chartering organization's position.

Any individual, whether or not they are pat of a chartering org, could broadcast their concerns about the CCWG proposal so that could be considered by chartering orgs in their internal deliberations.

For all these reasons, let’s continue to focus efforts on understanding concerns and questions raised by our chartering orgs, according to their own internal procedures and timelines.


From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net<mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>>
Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:55 PM
To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on CCWG-Accountability Proposal

I totally agree.

How can the SOs make any reasonsed decision without having the necessity
of taking into account the submitted comments when the comment period
has closed.

And I shall say so, in the ccNSO.



On 12/02/2015 06:46 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:

We should have a complete and open public comment period, and then allow
the chartering orgs to make up their mind. To my mind, that should be
sequential rather than simultaneous, otherwise doubts could be raised
about whether the public comment is meaningful.

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto: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/20151203/1fc914fa/attachment.html>