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

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

NTIA has stated that they have not set any timelines.

And the Protocol and Numbers community leaders' displeasure will be
verbal and reasonably articulated.

We should take all the time we need to get this right.

And if we fail, so the status quo is maintained. So what.


greetings, el

On 2015-12-17 08:43 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Dear All,
> Even if we agree( all with full consensus) that we 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.
> 
> Are we sure that at the end of the fourth round, if any , the Board
> would not come and make another major objection.
> 
> Perhaps we could say we have the work to the nbest of our ability
> 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).
> I am not prepared to asgree on
> 
> 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.
> Regards
> Kavouss
> 
> 
> 2015-12-17 6:44 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na
> <mailto:el at lisse.na>>:
> 
>     Since when is this a choice of the Co-CHairs, instead of the whole CCWG?
> 
>     Rethorical question of course.
> 
>     The Charter is clear on how this works, thre can be several rounds
>     if the Board disagrees with a 2/3.
> 
> 
> 
>     el
> 
>     On 2015-12-17 05:34 , Jordan Carter 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
>     <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>     > <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>     <mailto: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
>     [...]
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>     Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4218 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151217/67138614/smime-0001.p7s>