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

Thu Dec 3 07:07:12 UTC 2015

Process matters.

el

On 2015-12-03 06:20, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
> It is simply the case that at SOME point this is supposed to go to the
> chartering orgs as they are the ultimate decision makers. The HUGE
> majority of public comments come from WITHIN this community. Either we
> are able to operate as a community or we are not. Continuously throwing
> the same arguments over the transom because we feel like we get a better
> platform than we do working within the community has stopped entirely
> from being productive. I’m having the same argument inside the IPC, by
> the way. The primary use of public comments should be to generate new
> ideas not create ONE MORE round of repetitive comments that require the
> attention of the CCWG (for responding to which you go on to criticize
> the CCWG, of course, if they aren’t comments YOU feel are important). At
> this point, additional public comments from within the community only
> serve to make people feel more important than they are within that
> community. Now is the time to lobby within the GNSO to see changes you
> still want made and to compromise if you fail. Anything else is simply
> intellectual…er, gymnastics… and to defend it in the name of process is
> disingenuous at best.
> 
>  
> 
> Frankly, I’d like to see these measures actually go into effect. I’d
> like to stop the incredible mission creep we’re getting at the end of
> this process because folks feel like they have leverage. If everyone is
> so concerned that WS2 isn’t going to happen then we have simply failed
> at WS1 as that was the whole point: to put the community in charge of
> their own destiny in terms of reform…not to get every pet issue handled
> in WS1. And yes, the timeline probably DOES matter politically in the
> US. We can’t let this go on forever. There isn’t going to be a version
> of this with which everyone is completely happy so at some point, we
> need to go to the chartering orgs and see if they can live with it.
> There really shouldn’t be ANY public comment at this point but process
> demands we leave a window open for those who are unrepresented. I don’t
> need to read another public comment from within the community and do a
> whole new spreadsheet treating it on equal footing with the GNSO. It ain’t.
> 
>  
> 
> So, to be specific I think there’s a danger of letting this drag on much
> longer in terms of the politics in DC. I also see very little upside to
> holding an entire public comment period prior to getting feedback from
> the chartering orgs. As such it’s hard to compare the pros and cons here
> but we have heard from he public and a fairly significant way and gone a
> long way to address the concerns that have been raised. It ain’t perfect
> and it’s not going to be. That said, if we’ve done our job right, we
> have the ability to continue to reform the organization regardless of
> the makeup of the board and the responsibility will fall on the
> community to do so.
> 
> J
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Mueller, Milton L
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 2, 2015 7:23 PM
> *To:* Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>;
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on
> CCWG-Accountability Proposal
> 
>  
> 
> 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>
> [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
> <mailto: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
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 

-- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/