[CCWG-ACCT] [ccnso-members] about the CCWG 30-day comment period

[David Post]

It's a good reminder of why ICANN needs better accountability mechanisms . . .

>The public comment announcement includes the 
>remark "Because this (first) Public Comment 
>period is less than the required 40-day minimum, 
>it has been approved by two ICANN Global 
>Leaders." The term Global Leaders is a reference 
>to senior members of the ICANN staff and the 
>condition was created to ensure that a check 
>existed so that a single ICANN department would 
>not depart from the standard default time period 
>without broader senior staff input.  The public 
>comment guidelines and procedures are available 
>on the public wiki 
>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48344695


ICANN staff are not a sufficient check on other 
ICANN staff - it's pretty simple. ICANN staff 
work for ICANN, obviously, and are, obviously, 
beholden to it (s they should be, as 
employees).  They will do - or try to do - what 
they ultimately think the corporation (i.e., the 
Board) wants, because their jobs are dependent on 
that.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with that 
- but to think of it as a "check" on pressure to 
depart from the required 40-day comment period is pretty deeply flawed.

David




At 09:18 AM 5/6/2015, Roelof Meijer wrote:
>I am wondering: when Adam writes ³we² our group seems to think he means
>³ICANN staff².
>I do not think ICANN staff has set our time table. I read Adam¹s "You will
>remember this has been our intention since we discussed planning in
>Istanbul, and we concluded this discussion on the CCWG call of 30 April.²
>as us, the CCWG, deciding on it.
>
>Completely off-topic, but so ridiculous that I cannot help myself: if
>ICANN senior staff are now described as ³ICANN GlobalLeaders², what would
>that make its CEO? ICANN Leader of the Universe? OMG...
>
>Cheers,
>
>Roelof
>
>
>
>
>On 06-05-15 00:04, "J. William Semich" <bill at nunames.nu> wrote:
>
> >
> >I agree with Dr. Lisse 100%.
> >
> >ICANN staff must not set the timetables for any consensus process. Nor
> >should any committee (co-)chairs.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Bill Semich
> >.NU Domain
> >
> >On May 5, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.NA> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> So,
> >>
> >> now ICANN staff decides what comment period is acceptable.
> >>
> >> Outrageously unacceptable and objected to.
> >>
> >> I am still waiting for the response to my request to be provided with
> >>the notes or emails where this was discussed and approved by the CCWG.
> >>
> >> el
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
> >>
> >>> On May 5, 2015, at 21:41, Adam Peake <adam.peake at icann.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Note on behalf of Thomas, Leon and Mathieu about the CCWG proposal
> >>>30-day
> >>> public comment period.
> >>>
> >>> Hi everyone,
> >>>
> >>> We have seen comments about the 30-day public comment period.  You will
> >>> remember this has been our intention since we discussed planning in
> >>> Istanbul, and we concluded this discussion on the CCWG call of 30
> >>>April.
> >>> The outcome was to propose the first public comment should be for 30
> >>>days,
> >>> which would allow time for us to prepare a response for the ICANN
> >>>meeting
> >>> in  Buenos Aires.  It is particularly important that we are able to
> >>> respond to the dependencies identified by the CWG-Stewardship.
> >>>
> >>> Recognizing that the shorter public comment is not ideal for a subject
> >>>of
> >>> such importance to the community, we also took into account the fact
> >>>that
> >>> we will to hold a second public comment period some weeks after ICANN53
> >>> when we will seek input on any outstanding issues and provide details
> >>>and
> >>> explanation prompted by discussions with the community from the first
> >>> public comment and during ICANN53.
> >>>
> >>> The public comment announcement includes the remark "Because this
> >>>(first)
> >>> Public Comment period is less than the required 40-day minimum, it has
> >>> been approved by two ICANN Global Leaders."  The term Global Leaders
> >>>is a
> >>> reference to senior members of the ICANN staff and the condition was
> >>> created to ensure that a check existed so that a single ICANN
> >>>department
> >>> would not depart from the standard default time period without broader
> >>> senior staff input.  The public comment guidelines and procedures are
> >>> available on the public wiki
> >>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48344695
> >>>
> >>> Warm regards,
> >>>
> >>> Thomas, Leon and Mathieu
> >>> CCWG co-chairs
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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

*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music 
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic  publications 
etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************