[CCWG-ACCT] updated questions - CCWG public comment

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Dear Co-Chairs,

that addition at the 11th hour, of course, further invalidates the
Public Comment, which at the very least must be extended to
2015-07-02(/03?)  and again is damning evidence of this unnecessary
haste, which is counterproductive to a good outcome.

Or in layman's terms: "How on earth could this happen?"


You can read that as an objection, and as you are going to ignore it
anyway, it's on the record.

And, also for the record, I renew my objection against the flagrant
violation of the CCWG Accountability's Charter.

greetings, el


On 2015-06-01 11:29 , Adam Peake wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> A message on behalf of the co-chairs.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> Dear CCWG colleagues,
> 
> We noticed that 3 important questions from our proposal were not
> copied over to the list of questions on the public comment
> webpage:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en
> 
> This was a drafting error when the comments were taken from the
> body of the report and copied to Section 11 on Public Comment
> Input.  The questions are copied below.  Please flag these
> questions to your respective organizations and ask them to
> consider in any responses they are providing.
> 
> Omitted questions are:
> 
> 1.)  The CCWG-Accountability welcomes feedback on whether there is
> a need, as part of Work Stream 1 (pre-Transition), to provide for
> any other means for other parts of the ICANN system to be able to
> propose new Fundamental Bylaws or changes to existing ones.  In
> particular, the CCWG-Accountability welcomes feedback on whether
> the Mission should be subject to even higher thresholds of Board
> or community assent.  (para 126 of the CCWG proposal)
> 
> 2.)  Do you agree that the introduction of a community mechanism
> to empower the community over certain Board decisions would
> enhance ICANN’s accountability?  (para 189 of the CCWG proposal)
> 
> 3.)  What guidance, if any, would you provide to the
> CCWG-Accountability regarding the proposed options?  Please
> provide the underlying rationale in terms of required
> accountability features or protection against certain
> contingencies.  (para 190 of the CCWG proposal)
> 
> We have asked for the CCWG-Accountabilty public comment webpage to
> be updated.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> CCWG co-chairs
[...]

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4198 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150601/d9c3842b/smime.p7s>