[CCWG-ACCT] Analysis & Trends - Third Public Comment Period

[Jordan Carter]

Greg, all

I have seen a few comments along the 'we are ignoring the public comments!
Omg!' track in the past few days, and to be honest I am a little confused.

My impression was and is that:

- the working method we are using was documented, discussed and agreed by
the CCWG.

- in preparing the first reading docs, all of the public comments and the
trends from them were taken into account - they are what drives the 'issues
to discuss' the co-chair documents set out.

- all of us as members and participants have and had a responsibility to
review the public comment tool, and to draw to the attention of the group
any major points and trends in the comments that were missed.

- we said and I think we have tried to give priority to the views of
chartering organisations (where they have been able to get a view agreed
and shared), and will keep doing so as more do so. But this does not mean
the public comments have been ignored if not from chartering organisations.

So, given the above, I really struggle to see how people can conclude that
public comments are being ignored.

What am I missing? How are people concluding that we aren't doing due
diligence? What have we missed that should have been taken into account?

These aren't rhetorical questions from me. My comment review hasn't been
detailed but I can't think of major points that have been missed.

Accepting as I do that the public comments are being dealt with properly, I
also have an opinion that the group has largely come to a rough consensus
on many points, and that unless there was an overwhelming weight of
comments demanding a change to something, changes are at this point
unlikely.


Cheers!

Jordan

On Tuesday, 19 January 2016, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> This has a certain "better late than never" quality to it.  We seem to be
> blowing past the public comments (with one rather notable exception...) on
> our way toward a revised and presumably final proposal.
>
> It's rather sobering to see the first effort in making sense of the public
> comments come as we are into the second and final reading on many of the
> recommendations.  Perhaps "sobering" is not quite the right word.  "Daft"
> comes to mind, but that may be too harsh and a result of staying up too
> late.
>
> Regardless, we have to be careful that we let the process dictate the
> result, rather than vice versa.
>
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','alice.jansen at icann.org');>> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> For your information - analysis and trends slides of your Third Public
>> Comment period (see attached) can be found on your wiki page:
>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56984613
>>
>>    - Link to public comment box:
>>    https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en
>>    - Link to public comments:
>>    http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/
>>
>>    - Link to public comment summary and analysis:
>>    https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-08jan16-en.pdf
>>
>> Best regards
>> Alice
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>

-- 
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160119/b2f2d5f0/attachment.html>