[CCWG-ACCT] Issues with Providing Public Comments on CCWG-Accountability Proposal
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Thu Dec 3 16:36:33 UTC 2015
Nigel,
I think the flaps are not set, so we have no choice but to do this in
flight.
I agree that closing the door on Chartering Organization deliberations
before public comments are available is troubling. Our timeline doesn't
quite do that. The final Chartering Organization approval isn't until
mid-to-late January, so COs can (and should) leave themselves room to
consider these inputs before the final approval. I get the sense though,
that some COs are treating December 21 as essentially their final approval.
Greg
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>
wrote:
> Greg
>
> Interesting post.
>
> Two observations.
>
> 1. We should not be rebuilding the flaps in-flight.
>
> 2. We need to allow the SOs to have the benefit of the general public's
> input in its deliberations. It is wrong to say 'here's the proposal'
> without allowing us to read the reactions to it. There may be (no I say
> WILL be) intelligent and useful comment that will inform the debate within
> the SO.
>
>
>
>
> On 12/03/2015 04:09 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>
>> Bringing this thread back to its topic....
>>
>> We are in the midst of a situation that is essentially an experiment --
>> a simultaneous Public Comment period and [first?] Chartering
>> Organization review/support period. Unfortunately, we have some
>> unspecified parameters, which is probably not good experimental design
>> (unless this is really a social experiment).
>>
>> In particular, the relationships among (i) the Chartering Organization
>> review, (ii) the public comments generally, and (iii) possible public
>> comments from members and sub-organizations of the Chartering
>> Organizations are unspecified.
>>
>> Indeed, the possibility (or not) of public comments from
>> members/sub-organizations of Chartering Organizations was not fully
>> resolved.
>>
>> Focusing on this last point, there is more than one reasonable answer:
>>
>> 1. Public comments are completely open, and everybody participates as
>> normal, including members and suborganizations of Chartering
>> Organizations (COs).
>> 2. As above, but comments from members and suborganizations of COs are
>> significantly discounted, as their primary path for input should be
>> their CO.
>> 3. Public comments are not open to members or suborganizations of COs;
>> their input is limited to the process within their CO.
>>
>> Whichever route we choose, we should be consistent, rather than just
>> letting things happen. To take an example within GNSO, what if (a)
>> Stakeholder Group/Constituency (SG/C) A decides it is inappropriate for
>> the SG/C or its members to participate in public comment and guides all
>> input through the GNSO process, while (b) SG/C B decides it should not
>> comment but its members are free to do so (and even encouraged to do
>> so), and (c) SG/C C decides it is "business as usual." As a result, the
>> public comments reflect (a) nothing from SG/C A, (b) no comments from
>> SG/C B but a number of comments from its members, and (c) a comment from
>> SG/C C (representing the consensus view of its membership) and a number
>> of comments from its members. How do we evaluate that in the public
>> comment period? Is SG/C A missing a big opportunity or is SG/C wasting
>> everybody's time (including its own)? [Note: No one wants to waste
>> time, and no one wants to miss an opportunity, so we are on the horns of
>> a dilemma....]
>>
>> Another problem is defining who falls into the category of those who
>> should not (or must not) comment: All GAC members (does that extend to
>> their government as such?); all ccNSO members (what about non-ccNSO
>> ccTLDs?); all GNSO SG/Cs (but what about members of those SG/Cs, and
>> what about members of their members?); All ALAC members (but what about
>> RALOs and local structures and their members?); etc., etc. Where do we
>> draw the line?
>>
>> As long as we are all playing by the same rules, I'm happy to play by
>> those rules. But if each group is going to make up their own rules,
>> then I would want my constituency to make its views known anywhere they
>> could be heard (and anywhere they are needed to support or disagree with
>> the views of others similarly situated in the ICANN ecosystem).
>>
>> Chartering Organization participants should not be in the position of
>> having to make individual judgment calls about whether it is appropriate
>> to make public comments. CCWG and staff should not be in the position
>> of having to decide whether to discount certain public comments because
>> they came from "inside" (especially since that is an ill-defined
>> universe). We need a unified approach to this problem.
>>
>> So what do we do?????
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net
>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Kavouss,
>> I had no intention of slighting your country. I have great respect
>> for the people and culture of Persia, one of the world's great
>> civilisations. Ms. Gross comment was simply a critique of survey
>> design. It had nothing to do with any so called "anti GAC" sentiment
>> and your initial post itself was personally critical of "few
>> persons" and certainly Ms. Gross herself. I honestly do not know how
>> elections are conducted in your fine country, and although I
>> certainly would not have phrased things as I did had I known you
>> would take offence, I could not fathom how anyone could object to
>> Ms. Gross attempt to correct a ballot malapropos that she
>> believes defaults to a certain answer. I assumed your objection was
>> cultural in nature. My apologies to you if it were not.
>> As to your response, which referenced the murder of innocent people
>> in criticising other countries, As I sit here in Paris working to
>> prepare for concerts this weekend following the recent tragedy in
>> this city, hopeful my body will not be riddled with bullet holes
>> by Tuesday as industry colleagues of mine recently were, I take deep
>> offence. I have sent an inquiry to His Excellency Javad Kachoueian,
>> Ambassador of Iran to my country of Ireland, referencing your post
>> and asking whether that is an argumentative technique approved of by
>> his government. Iff any response is received, I shall share it with
>> you off-list.
>> I commend you, Kavouss, on your exceptional contributions to the
>> CCWG over the past year. I look forward to working with you on
>> substantive matters going forward and, again, apologies for any
>> personal slight you felt as as result of my post. That certainly
>> was not my intent.
>> Cordially,
>> Edward Morris
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From*: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
>> *Sent*: Thursday, December 3, 2015 12:00 PM
>> *To*: "el at lisse.NA" <el at lisse.NA>
>> *Cc*: "directors at omadhina.net <mailto:directors at omadhina.net>"
>> <directors at omadhina.net <mailto:directors at omadhina.net>>,
>> "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
>> Dear Sir,
>> I strongly object to your comments inappropriately referring to my
>> country which I am proud of it.Mire strongly I categorically reject
>> your illusion to "democratic ".
>> If democratic country is the one that very often the people open
>> fire to innocent people then I am happy that those thing never
>> happened in my country.
>> Moreover, we are dealing with issues in personal capacity without
>> representing a given country. I do not understand your anti Iranian
>> feelings.
>> I respect all countries and their people .
>> Pls refrain to refer to any country in CCWG process as we do not
>> represent a country but a community.
>> Sir, you de passed the limit if politeness, code of conduct and all
>> international standards.
>> I invite you to calm down, observe ICANN code of conducts Courtesy,
>> friendship, and respect others .
>> This us the last time that tolerate and if you and any other CCWG
>> MEMBERS refer to my country then you will see the consequence of
>> such inappropriate reference.
>> Mr. Arasteh
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On 3 Dec 2015, at 09:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.NA> wrote:
>> >
>> > My, My, My, are we getting testy.
>> >
>> > I thought Sadowsky's resentment was predetermined, but it seems the
>> heat
>> > is turning up.
>> >
>> > el
>> >
>> >
>> >> On 2015-12-03 10:01, Edward Morris wrote:
>> >> Hi Kavrous,
>> >>
>> >> I don't know how you do things in Iran, but in the democratic
>> countries
>> >> I've lived in we try to avoid ballots that default to predetermined
>> >> choices. That whole integrity of the ballot thing.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks, Robin, for identifying and pointing out this software flaw.
>> >> Hopefully it is something staff and / or our fine leadership team
>> will
>> >> be able to address in short order.
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >>
>> >> Ed Morris
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Dec 3, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <
>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>> >> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:
>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> It is strange that the same person always comments on ST18.
>> >>> There is an anti GAC sentiments in few persons members if CCWG
>> >>> It is a pity to gave such reactions
>> >>> Regards
>> >>> Kavoysd
>> >>>
>> >>> Sent from my iPhone
>> > [...]
>> > --
>> > Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
>> > el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone:+264 81 124 6733
>> <tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell)
>> > PO Box 8421 \ /
>> > Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>> <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
>> <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/20151203/6e051249/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list