[CCWG-ACCT] FW: [Acct-Staff] Comment on CCWG-Accountability statement

[Edward Morris]

I would ask that staff stop forwarding emails from Mr. Hill to the CCWG list.

It is my understanding, and I stand to be corrected, that Mr. Hill choses to participate in the process in this way because of his opposition to the SOI requirement. I support the SOI requirement as a means of ensuring transparency in the WG process. To allow an individual to subvert this important transparency tool through the use of staff posting privileges is just plain wrong. 

I welcome Mr. Hill's active participation in the CCWG. He obviously is an intelligent man with a well considered point of view. He should not, however, be allowed to bypass our very important SOI policy. He is free to make public comments without filing a SOI and they are most welcome. Posting on list though, an important part of our CCWG working method, needs to be reserved to those who follow our own transparency and accountability procedures. If we allow Mr. Hill to subvert the process can we really in all fairness require others to follow it?

Thanks for considering,

Ed Morris

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 29, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> Forwarding this email on behalf of Richard Hill.
> Best regards
> Alice 
>> 
>>> On 6/21/15, 5:02 PM, "Richard Hill" <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Please forward to the CCWG-Accountability mailing list.
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> Richard
>>> 
>>> =====================================================================
>>> 
>>> I refer to the 20 June 2015 statement from the CCWG-Accountability, at:
>>> 
>>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-20-en
>>> 
>>> The statement does not mention what appears to me to be a significant
>>> issue:
>>> the comments from the community differed sharply regarding the matter of
>>> the
>>> jurisdiction of ICANN. Some commentators favored US jurisdiction (as at
>>> present), some commentators favor changes in the bylaws that would make
>>> it
>>> difficult to change jurisdiction away from the US, and other commentators
>>> took the view that the jurisdiction should not remain in the US.
>>> 
>>> This is, in my view, an important issue that should be highlighted as
>>> requiring further discussion.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Richard
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community