[CCWG-ACCT] Communique - revised - any feedback by midnight Argentina time

[Roelof Meijer]

Chris,

Although I am sure this was sent with the best intention, it does not help
at all. At least, not me.
It is a common phenomenon, but I get very annoyed when, with the purpose
of sending a singular particular person a corrective message, a whole
group is addressed.

And that is for three reasons:

1) when you write ³participants², ³we² and ³us², your message seems to
address me too. However, I have no recollection of making personal attacks
on anybody. I feel accused of something I did not do.

2) it is inefficient and ineffective. You¹re addressing a whole lot of
people who are behaving correctly. Your message is useless to them. The
person you intend to address can always fool himself (and possibly others)
that the message was not directed at him. And continue his behavior.

3) Although I understand that you don¹t want to personally attack someone,
your generic message makes a weak point and at least gives me the
impression that you¹re reluctant to speak out clearly and rightfully.

Best,

Roelof Meijer




On 22-06-15 09:27, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
behalf of Chris LaHatte" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
on behalf of chris.lahatte at icann.org> wrote:

>May I implore participants to continue to note the ICANN policy on polite
>discourse. It is important to have a strong and vigorous debate but we
>don't need to make personal attacks on each other. A polite note of
>disagreement should be sufficient, and has been frequently used. But if
>we start to attack individuals on list, this will distract us from the
>real tasks
>Regards
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 22/06/2015, at 8:53 am, Paul Rosenzweig
>><paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Colleagues
>> 
>> It seems to me worth recording, for "the record" that our colleague so
>> frequently alludes to, some thoughts about the leadership of our group.
>> Given the frequency and vituperative nature of the criticism emanating
>>from
>> one corner, I would not want silence in our discussions to in any way
>> betoken agreement or assent.  When some future historian looks back on
>>these
>> proceedings they might mistake volume for accuracy and lack of
>>contradiction
>> for agreement.  That is most certainly not the case (at least not for
>>me,
>> and I suspect for many others).
>> 
>> I, for one, began this process with a modest amount of optimism that it
>> could prove productive and a healthy dollop of skepticism that so
>>unwieldy a
>> process could be effectively managed.  In 35 years in government and the
>> private sector I have seen any number of committees with a much narrower
>> mandate and a much smaller membership flounder and fail.
>> 
>> We should all, therefore, reflect that our co-Chairs and rapporteurs
>>have,
>> through their efforts, managed to push us along this far and this
>> effectively.  They have run an open and transparent process.  They have
>>been
>> inclusive.  They have moved the discussion along (perhaps too fast for
>>some,
>> but well within the bounds of reasonableness).  They have exhibited
>>patience
>> beyond measure (I, personally, would long ago have asked the chartering
>> organization to recall its member).  And, to their very great credit,
>>they
>> have allowed the process to run without imposing their own views --
>>indeed,
>> I would be hard pressed to state exactly what they might be -- an
>>exercise
>> in restraint that deserves praise.
>> 
>> In short, by any objective measure our co-Chairs have done a fine job.
>>It
>> has not been perfect, to be sure, but it has met every objective test of
>> reasonableness that one can devise.  I reject utterly any suggestion of
>> bias, animus, or dishonesty.  Those  are baseless puerile allegations
>>that
>> reflect more on the nature of the accuser, whose views will, I am sure,
>>be
>> seen in retrospect as baseless.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Paul
>> 
>> Paul Rosenzweig
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm at linx.net]
>> Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 4:59 PM
>> To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
>> Cc: List ccTLD Community; CCWG Accountability; Lisse Eberhard;
>> <ccnso-members at icann.org>; cctldworld at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communique - revised - any feedback by midnight
>> Argentina time
>> 
>>> On 21/06/2015 21:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
>>> Dear Co-Chairs,
>>> 
>>> Your Co-Chair is being quite economical with the truth.
>> 
>> Dear Dr Lisse,
>> 
>> I am getting quite tired of the repeated disrespect you are showing to
>>our
>> colleagues, and your unfair attempts to impugne their integrity.
>> 
>> The communique was proposed to the meeting and read out. Participants
>>were
>> invited to comment; there being no substantive comments, the communique
>>was
>> accepted. I don't know what more deliberation you could want. The
>>handling
>> was entirely proper and normal.
>> 
>> Your attacks on León are without a shred of justification, as were your
>> previous attacks on our co-chairs. He deserves your apology, as do
>>they; if
>> you choose to withhold it, that reflects upon you, not on them.
>> 
>> Perhaps you might wish to reflect on how counter-productive your
>>approach is
>> to any effort to persuade colleagues to give their attention to your
>> interventions, and the disservice you are doing your own cause thereby.
>> 
>> I am a proud proponent of the multistakeholder model. Many on this list
>>are
>> new to this model, and unused to the opportunity openness to all does
>>give
>> to those who wish to be rude and disruptive. I am embarrassed to think
>>how
>> they must feel when they see this spat, and the other occasions you have
>> mistreated colleagues here.
>> 
>> I can only hope that our new colleagues can look past the behaviour of
>>one
>> individual and recognise the deep well of cooperation and goodwill that
>> characterises the rest of our work. I hope they can still find it in
>> themselves to agree with me that the great achievement of building a
>>broad
>> base of consensus in such a challenging area is worth even the
>>inconvenience
>> of suffering such rudeness.
>> 
>> I am sorry I have had to be so blunt, but remaining silent felt too much
>> like complicity in an injustice.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> Malcolm Hutty.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>>            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>>   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog  London
>> Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>> 
>>                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
>>           21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
>> 
>>         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>>       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> 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
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community