[CCWG-ACCT] Our timetable -- some personal observations

[Jordan Carter]

Hi all

I would like to put on record my personal observations regarding the
schedule of our work for the past few months. I do so in an effort to be as
transparent as possible about my own role in the process, and to offer some
thoughts on the consequences of further delays at this point.

First, I believe we have pulled together a credible Third Draft report
which can be accepted as is by the SOs and ACs, and would pass the NTIA
tests. So the fundamental quality of the work is not in question.

Second, what will be vital (given the short timeframe for this Third Draft
and the limited public comment) is that there is fulsome and non-truncated
public comment on the Bylaws and other changes that will give effect to
these proposals.  That is where the "Every Word Has To Be Right" standard
must be applied. For the current report, the intent must be clear - and
that is the basis on which I have been happy to accept the truncated
process for this phase.

Third, the drivers. To me the following have helped leave me able to deal
with the compressed timeframe:

- pressure from senior ICANN staff and directors to "get it done" - and
clear paintings, as recently as Dublin, of "horror" scenarios if the report
isn't finished by mid-January. This has tended to be based on views about
the U.S. political cycle.

- pressure from the numbering and protocols communities, who want this done
and dusted and wish the transition had already been done.

- the desire generally to close the work out, given the slowly reducing
levels of volunteer commitment evident over the past few months.


So I have been able to live with that.

Fourth, I want to note my own ongoing frustration with the way the ICANN
Board has involved itself in this process:
- non involvement in the first parts of the process
- interventions in the second draft proposal consultation and,
problematically, around the Los Angeles meeting that made it impossible for
us to present a Third Draft Report to the Dublin meeting.
- a new intervention now with further substantive changes proposed, some of
which are fundamental to the Third Draft (esp. the human rights, voting
thresholds, inspection rights and IANA budget) that cannot be incorporated
without further delays to the process.
- the astonishing change in tone about the timetable - from "THIS MUST BE
DONE" to "we should take the time to get this right!".

It seems to me the Board's conflict of interest in this process, which is
inherent (the body being held to account is inserting itself into decisions
about how that should happen), has been managed in a fashion that has made
our work harder, that has called into question the ability to complete a
workable proposal, and has caused unnecessary stress and friction both
within the CCWG and with the other operational communities.

That said: we are where we are.

So for the next few weeks I offer this observation.

If the substantive changes proposed by the Board on the items I noted above
are agreed to by the CCWG, it will require:

- diligent work to assure the quality of the proposals, including legal
review
- a re-presentation of the final proposal, along with explanation of why
the changes have been made
- a re-consideration of the final proposal by the chartering SOs and ACs.

This will all take time, and in my view at least a month of time if not
more.  That is even if the outcome is not to agree with the Board's
changes. (Personally I think a few of them are helpful, and that they
should be judged on the merits - if we agree to take the time to do so.)

ICANN agreeing to a slower timetable is one thing, but it does not change
the fact that other actors do not wish to see more time taken. I cannot
imagine numbers and protocols being happy about further time. (That is a
deliberate understatement. I think they would be furious.)


So in the end, the critical decision we face is whether to deal with
substantive comment in a way that could lead to key things being changed in
a manner that:

- accepts fundamental changes and the change to the schedule involved
- rejects fundamental changes, and takes the risk of the Board's comment it
may oppose those changes coming true


As usual, we are again in an invidious situation through no fault of our
(the CCWG's) own. It is no surprise volunteer numbers are down.

I would be interested in the views of other participants on the following:

- do you think substantive changes such as those of the Board would require
delays if adopted following the close of public comments?

- do you feel comfortable with delay if required?


best,
Jordan


-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter
Web: www.internetnz.nz

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151216/dc4ffcde/attachment.html>