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

Thu Dec 17 13:57:36 UTC 2015

Thank you Bruce for your timely response to my question. 

I realise the question was not clear enough, which sounded like a question about the Board's position about the timelines and the process.

Let me try again - 

It would be helpful to know how strongly the ICANN Board feels about some of the suggestions the Board has made in the public comment, to have them reflected in the final CCWG proposal.

Specifically:
 - Out of a number of suggestions the ICANN Board has made in the public comment, is there any suggestion which ICANN Board feel strongly about, to have it reflected in the final CCWG proposal?
   (Including considerations to possible impact on the timelines to reflect the suggestion)
 - Or does the Board strongly believe equally in all of the suggestions it has made, to have them reflected in the final proposal?

To explain a little more of the thinking behind - 

Out of the comment ICANN Board has submitted on each of the #12 recommendations, I wonder perhaps different suggestions from the Board, expressed in the public comment have different weight. 

Board's response to my question would be helpful in considering further on how we handle a case which meets the both conditions below (if there is any which are applicable).

  - A suggestion(s) from the ICANN Board, which is perceived as "fundamental changes" from the CCWG 3rd version of the proposal, which could change the current CCWG timelines; AND
  - A suggstion(s) from the ICANN Board, which ICANN Board strongly believe must be reflected in the final CCWG proposal

If this will need further discussions in the Board, I understand and will note that as status, which would still be helpful.

Thanks,
Izumi

On 2015/12/17 19:41, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> Hello Izumi,
> 
>>>  Based on this, I have a question to Bruce as ICANN Board liaison - Is there a suggestion(s) which the ICANN Board believes must be reflected, with taking into consideration of possibly delaying the current CCWG timelines if those changes are "fundamental"?
> 
> We have committed to working within the timelines set by the CCWG.   That means we provide our comments within the public comment period specified by the CCWG.  
> 
> When we receive the final report from the CCWG we intend to meet and vote on that report as soon as possible.   If we end up voting against a recommendation - we would then set a time for dialogue with the CCWG as soon as the CCWG is available (ie days not weeks).
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 
> 
> Izumi
> 
> 
> On 2015/12/16 12:57, Jordan Carter wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 