CCWG comments last call

Sun Sep 6 11:18:19 EEST 2015

I would agree with Robin's suggestion.  The Board's counter-proposal, if it
comes out formally in anything like the form they disclosed to the CCWG will
be pernicious and (for me at least) possibly a deal breaker.  I think it
would well-deserve its own critique and, as James says, it is better to be
reacting to a concrete proposal than it is to a 10-bullet point outline
(which is all we have so far).

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton.mueller at PUBPOLICY.GATECH.EDU] 
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2015 11:25 AM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: CCWG comments last call

Agree with James. On the comment document, Robin suggested that we develop a
separate comment on the board proposal, if and when it surfaces in fully
developed form. 

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of James
Gannon
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2015 6:19 AM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> 
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] CCWG comments last call

I would argue against it, until the board has provided its comments in
writing I don't think we should give them any precedence over the others. 

We know in concept what their position is but we have no idea of any of
their actual disagreements or substance of their positions yet.

-J

On 6 Sep 2015, at 10:46, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> > wrote:

I've added a few comments.  General question: should we add some language
taking into account the Board's positions outlined on the call the other
day?  I noted a couple spots where this could be done but am unsure whether
people want to go there. 

Bill

On Sep 5, 2015, at 9:58 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG> >
wrote:

For the record I still oppose the revised formula on voting rights in
the NCSG statement.  Though it may end up a moot point, given the
Board's refusal to accept the CMSM.

avri

On 04-Sep-15 18:43, Mueller, Milton L wrote:

I have made some revisions. We seem to have rough consensus that we are
opposed to the proposed voting allocations and consider them and two other
things serious enough to raise doubts about whether the CCWG-Accountability
proposal enhances ICANN's accountability. The comments now note that we are
not unanimous on this but do have a preponderance of opinion that would
constitute rough consensus. We all seem to be in agreement about our
discussion of the so-called "freedom to contract" section and the section on
advice from public authorities. We also now seem to have a way forward on
how to handle the HR commitment, though that has only been floated a few
minutes ago so it needs more review.

In reviewing these comments, please refrain from the temptation to introduce
minor wordsmithing - we really don't have time for it at this point. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JGBXO5oOiN_FxivPFkHjz3Gc2w3AT2PeJznrXPw2
fJ4/edit

Dr. Milton L Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

*********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org/> 
william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>  (direct),
wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>  (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/> 
Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
*********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150906/978c9c6c/attachment.htm>