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

[Greg Shatan]

I think that something between (i) and (iii) (but bearing no relationship
to (ii)) is another option.

I think we need to take into account significant ("red flag"/"red line")
issues that come from the SOACs and from the public comment process
(including those from the Board.  But we need to deal with them in a
somewhat different manner.


   - If there are issues that seem significantly likely to cause one or
   more SOACs to reject a recommendation, those need to be dealt with
   (although "one man's meat is another man's poison" -- i.e., a solution to
   avoid rejection by one SOAC could bring about potential rejection by
   another SOAC).
   - If a SOAC or comment points out a way in which our proposal is
   "broken" (won't work the way we think it would, unintended consequences,
   reasonable but not previously contemplated scenarios), these need to be
   dealt with.  These need to be distinguished from "implementation level"
   issues, which we should not deal with now.  The flaw needs to be in the
   root, not the branch, so to speak.
   - Public comments that merely advocate different choices should be
   resisted.  We have made many choices throughout this process.  If we still
   have a consensus behind these choices and they don't fall into one of the
   two categories above, we should stick with these choices.  We can't start
   moving the furniture around at this point.  [However, we could go overboard
   in declaring the proposal sacrosanct, causing us to turn a blind eye to
   flaws we don't want to acknowledge.  We want to be firm, but not rigid.]

I think this would result in a very discriminating and surgical application
of "fixes" over a short period of time (hopefully, the time allotted before
the January SOAC final approval, or some very modest slippage from there).
As such, it is a middle ground between (i) we're done and (iii) another
full ride on the CCWG roller coaster.

Greg

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Paul and Malcolm, I think you make sensible points.
>
> On Malcolm's options, my view is that i) (Third Draft is it) or a variant
> of iii) (Fourth Draft or at least Supplemental) are viable.
>
> Option ii) is utterly beyond the realm of what would be reasonable or
> acceptable.
>
> I still think it would be helpful for SOs and ACs to offer their views on
> the Recommendations by the requested deadline, even if there is a view that
> more work will later need to be done.
>
> After all, it would not be helpful to the CCWG to have to do any further
> work it might decide to do (if it doesn't choose Malcolm's Option i))
>  without views from the SOs and ACs to take into account, along with public
> comments such as that from the Board. If we are going to do more work, we
> should do it with a full set of views represented by the various relevant
> groups.
>
> best
> Jordan
>
>
> On 17 December 2015 at 08:41, Paul Rosenzweig <
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
>
>> Malcolm is, of course, completely correct.  The Board's last minute effort
>> to play the GPI card is an effort to cow the Co-Chairs into adopting their
>> views as a way of avoiding further delay.  As Malcolm says, however, if
>> the
>> CCWG accedes to those demands it risks losing the support of many
>> individuals and perhaps even some chartering organizations.
>>
>> My own recommendation is that the Chartering Organizations withhold their
>> support pending not only close of the public comment period but also a
>> determination by the Co-Chairs as to how they intend to proceed.  If the
>> Co-Chairs choose to modify the Third Proposal in response to the Board and
>> if they do so without futher engagement and public comment that process
>> foul, by itself, would be grounds for the Chartering Organizations to
>> reject
>> the proposal -- and I would strongly advocate that they do so.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Paul Rosenzweig
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>> Link to my PGP Key
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm at linx.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 5:22 AM
>> To: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>; Accountability Cross
>> Community
>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Our timetable -- some personal observations
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16/12/2015 03:57, Jordan Carter wrote:
>> >
>> > 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),
>>
>> Indeed, we should remember this conflict, when considering the Board's
>> input.
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> The Board also proposes to reject and entirely rewrite our proposal on the
>> Mission text. It rejects the compromise we put forward on the prohibition
>> on
>> regulating web site content (etc), a compromise we carefully constructed,
>> over many weeks of intense negotiation balancing diverse interests.
>>
>> Needless to say, for many of us the Board's proposal is simply
>> unacceptable,
>> and should be dropped. But if we do try to work to find a new formulation,
>> that will likely take many weeks within CCWG before we could get a new
>> draft
>> on which to consult.
>>
>> > 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?
>> >
>>
>> Actually, I think we have a larger problem even than that.
>>
>> The public comment round on the Third Draft was designed to avoid
>> receiving
>> significant public comment that would lead to substantial changes.
>> - The report has been presented as our final report.
>> - The comment period was highly truncated, a mere (20?) days, and
>> scheduled
>> in the run-up to the holiday season.
>> - The Chairs have let it be known that comment is principally sought from
>> the Chartering Organisations rather than the general public.
>> -The Chairs have also stressed most clearly that they are soliciting
>> support
>> for the proposal, not ideas for further improvement, and that the question
>> on the table is not "Do you like this recommendation?" or "Are there
>> aspects
>> of this recommendation that you would want changed?"
>> but "Will you raise a fundamental objection to transition if this
>> recommendation proceeds?".
>> - Most particularly, by sending the report to the Chartering Organisations
>> while public comment is still open, the Chairs have sent the clearest
>> possible signal that the time for further improvements is over.
>>
>> Frankly, stated like this it can look like an appalling attempt to exclude
>> public input and impose an outcome. But there is a legitimate
>> justification: our work must eventually conclude, and there comes a point
>> when, having done our best, anything more is worse. So the above process
>> would be justified if the Chairs have already concluded that this Third
>> Draft Report is the best report of which CCWG is capable; that the length
>> and intensity of our work cannot be maintained any longer, and so
>> continuing
>> negotiations would amount to letting a dwindling band of volunteers
>> capture
>> the CCWG to impose their own viewpoint.
>>
>> I think sooner or later we must reach that point, and if the Chairs say
>> that
>> we reached it with publication of the Third Draft Report I will accept
>> their
>> judgement.
>>
>> If that is where we are, then the correct approach to the Board's
>> substantial disagreements with core aspects of our proposal is simply to
>> proceed on our current path: we convey our report to the Chartering
>> Organisations and, with their support, deliver it to the Board as the
>> final,
>> considered community view. If the Board chooses to reject the community
>> view, that's on them. The Board may back down, and support our proposal.
>> And
>> it may not, in which case it will be up to the NTIA to decide whether it
>> agrees with us (and demands cooperaion from a recalcitrant Board) or with
>> the Board (and so concludes that this community is not sufficient mature
>> to
>> be able to accept transition).
>>
>> On the other hand, if we have not reached "the end of the line", then we
>> must continue our work not only on the Board's input but on that of others
>> too.
>>
>> If we simply adopt the Board recommendations unthinkingly, subordinating
>> our
>> judgement to theirs, we will have essentially been captured by the Board,
>> and handed them control of the process; if that happens, I would oppose
>> transition for that reason alone: this community would then have proven
>> itself to have insufficient willpower to hold the Board to account, and so
>> would be in my view too immature to accept transition.
>>
>> If instead we take up any of several key areas where the Board has
>> proposed
>> major changes for detailed consideration, that will take time to negotiate
>> amongst ourselves, and will likely still result in disagreement with the
>> Board view in some cases. We will also have to consider other input, not
>> just the Board's, and given how we've run this public comment round, we
>> may
>> have to re-open it in January to attract that input. We will also have to
>> be
>> prepared to take comments from the public on yet another major set of
>> changes. That means having a proper public comment period (that runs for
>> 60
>> days), with a genuine attempt to attract rather than avoid participation.
>> In
>> that comment round, one of the key questions will be "Do you think this
>> recommendation in the Fourth Draft Report is an improvement on its
>> counterpart in the Third, or a retrograde step?".
>>
>> Given that the current process is still running I cannot see any
>> possibility
>> of agreeing a Fourth Draft Report before the end of January, most likely
>> mid-February. Add 60 days for comment and a couple of weeks to collate and
>> analyse comment, we'd be looking at reaching a conclusion in late May.
>> Even
>> if the comment period were pulled back to 30 days, we're still talking end
>> April.
>>
>> I think the Board has put the Chairs in an invidious position. To
>> summarise
>> their options as I see them:
>>
>> i) declare that we've reached the end of the line, for better or for
>> worse,
>> and that the Third Draft Report remains final. This may be the best
>> option,
>> but if it leads to transition failure they will likely be scapegoated by
>> the
>> Board (who would actually deserve the blame).
>>
>> ii) bounce CCWG into accepting the core of the Board's latest demands by
>> ignoring those that voice disagreement. This will utterly discredit the
>> CCWG
>> process, and may lead to many individual stakeholders (but perhaps not
>> Chartering Organisations) directly opposing transition on this basis. This
>> route may be the path of least resistance for the Chairs, but it will
>> cause
>> lasting damage to ICANN and undermine the credibility of
>> multistakeholderism
>> more generally, most particularly amongst multistakholderism's traditional
>> cheerleaders.
>>
>> iii) re-open substantive work to produce a Fourth Draft Report, putting it
>> on a timeline for public review that won't conclude until
>> late-spring/early-summer, and will *still* risk the Board pulling the same
>> stunt yet again. The displeasure of the numbers and protocols community
>> leaders will be fearsome. I don't know what NTIA would think about being
>> told we're pushing back the deadline by 4-6 months and will miss the
>> Congressional calendar window, but I doubt they'll be happy either.
>>
>> Does anyone see another way out of this I have missed?
>>
>> Malcolm.
>>
>> --
>>             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>>    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog  London
>> Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>>
>>                  London Internet Exchange Ltd
>>        Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
>>
>>          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>>        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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 *
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151216/b56e5a24/attachment-0001.html>