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

[Nigel Roberts]

I fully support the comments of Mr Arasteh.

I also remain concerned about the legitimacy of the process.

We carried out a U-turn away from the membership model after many months 
of work.

This was as recently as just over a month ago.

So essentially what we have in the Draft Proposal is an entirely new 
concept for the redesign and reimplementation of ICANN.

And it is most substantial.

Let us pass over the perception that many of us had in Dublin that the 
inexplicable change in the views of the authors and certain participants 
was the result of a secret agreement  . . . and take the current 
proposal on its face.


Those people and organisations that are significantly affected by this 
proposal need proper time to consider the proposal seriously and 
comprehensively.

And public authorities (government bodies) even longer.

If proper account is not taken of the concerns of Mr Arasteh, Mr 
Deerhake and others, the consensus view will have to be that this 
proposal is half-baked (in both senses of that expression).

What I personally find frustrating is that this is all so unnecessary.

If we had spent less time trying to chivvy the process along, we might 
be further along, and in more agreement!



Nigel

PS: I'm somewhat concerned about the repeated suggestions that one 
reason for the CCWG's unseemly haste is that it all to be done and 
dusted while there is a Democratic administration still in power in the 
United Sates -- this has been put to me by several respected colleagues.

I know of no more sure way to ensure a negative view of ICANN by a 
hypothetical future incoming administration of a different political 
stance than such an apparently partisan approach, aimed at presenting a 
hypothetical non-Democrat led government with a fait accompli.

I must reiterate my view that ICANN has to be above party politics in 
all countries. We expect it to be around through many years of different 
administrations, and we have to get along.


On 12/06/2015 05:21 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Dear Co- Chair
> In the light of many disagreement  and serious objections so far
> expressed, taking into account my yesterday,s message, you are urged to
> review your position in positively respond to the valid arguments
> submitted by many CCWG colleagues.