[CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary
Nigel Roberts
nigel at channelisles.net
Tue Nov 10 16:15:14 UTC 2015
Greg is right.
The Co-Chairs and ICANN itself seem to prefer 'FAST'.
On 11/10/2015 04:10 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I share Phil's concerns (and, this time, even Eberhard's concerns).
>
> This timeline doesn't work. I wish I'd picked up the issue earlier, but
> I'm already responding on so many different issues that I feel like an
> octopus. You have to let some through and hope that another octopus (or
> starfish) picks it up.
>
> There are carts before horses all over the place. The timing of the
> public comment process and the SO/AC approval process doesn't work, and
> the interplay between the two is backwards. I think the set-up we have
> essentially invalidates the public comment process, both as a direct
> input to our work, and as an input to SO/AC approval. I've already
> heard people I respect say "don't worry about the public comment
> process, it's a waste of time; focus on the SO/AC approval process."
> But how does the SO/AC approval process work if the SO/AC members and
> constituent parts haven't been able to officially digest the Report,
> confer among themselves and with others and come up with positions, and
> attempt to resolve those positions during the time allowed?
>
> I also agree that this is based on a series of Herculean and unworkable
> assumptions.
>
> There's an old joke about the sign in the lawyer's office: GOOD, FAST,
> CHEAP -- PICK ANY TWO. We already know we're cheap (heck, we're free),
> so the choice boils down to two options: GOOD or FAST.
>
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com
> <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
>
> While others address the substance of this first full draft of the
> executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns
> about the timeline for public comments – including statements from
> and consideration by the Chartering Organizations.____
>
> __ __
>
> Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there had
> been any community discussion to extend the comment period, and this
> is the reply I made, with special emphasis on my role as a member of
> the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin consideration of draft
> GNSO comments regarding the 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th
> ---____
>
> __ __
>
> “I don’t know of any discussion yet to extend the comment period,
> but wouldn’t be all that surprised if there is one, given that this
> designator model is a major revision and deviation from the prior
> member model.____
>
> __ __
>
> Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline,
> especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent
> the BC. While the summary report (first draft of which I just
> forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15^th , the
> full and detailed draft proposal won’t be out until two weeks later,
> on November 30^th . I’ve been through enough legislative processes
> to know that staff-drafted summaries can never be relied upon to
> fully and accurately convey the language and potential ambiguities
> and inconsistencies in the underlying text, and that there is no
> substitute for its line-by-line dissection.____
>
> __ __
>
> November 30^th is only three weeks prior to the December 21^st
> deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form and
> submit a fully informed comment, especially for trade associations
> and other groups which must consider multiple inputs. *Even more
> worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the Council is
> supposed to “Share draft GNSO comment on 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal”
> on December 5^th , just five days after the full text is released.
> As I am supposed to represent your consensus views, it means the BC
> has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss the full text, and that
> Councilors must then attempt in the short remaining time to
> reconcile the separate views of those they represent into a single
> consensus draft GNSO comment. (I do note that the Council has almost
> two additional weeks to massage its comment, as the target for
> submission is December 18^th .)____*
>
> *__ __*
>
> This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its consensus
> views _prior to_ any opportunity to review all the public comments.
> This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council
> makes final determinations only _after_ it reviews all public
> comments. It also puts a large degree of pressure on those
> constituencies that Councilors represent to instruct us on their
> views long before the comment period has concluded.____
>
> __ __
>
> My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists for
> a reason. I’m not for undue delay, but I am for adequate scrutiny,
> and I am concerned that this timeline does not provide sufficient
> time for that. “____
>
> __ __
>
> _Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning’s CCWG call,
> just concluded. _____
>
> __ __
>
> Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to
> limit ICANN’s ability to “regulate” use of the Internet. On page 30
> of the Summary memo it says this:____
>
> The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying
> ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to:____
>
> • Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related
> to the Domain Name____
>
> System (DNS)____
>
> o *ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique
> identifiers, or the____*
>
> *content that such services carry or provide.____*
>
> *o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with
> contracted parties____*
>
> *(entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top
> level domain____*
>
> *names) *[Emphasis added]____
>
> __ __
>
> But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous
> discussion there is still no agreement on what that language should
> be, or even the scope of the limitation it is trying to describe (in
> fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that second point).
> So on that key subject no one can draft an intelligent and informed
> comment based upon the high level summary document to be released on
> 11/15, and must await the full text promised for 11/30 – yet
> Councilors are supposed to survey those they represent and begin
> consideration of a draft GNSO comment by December 5^th .____
>
> __ __
>
> _Let’s be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully
> informed public comments can be developed and submitted is presently
> only three weeks, from November 30^th to December 21^st ._For the
> Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to consider the
> approval of the CCWG-Accountability 3^rd CCWG Proposal Review and
> adoption of GNSO statement on 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal on December
> 17^th , with the Council Statement being submitted one day later on
> December 18^th . Then Councillors are supposed to consider final
> documents and motions as early as two weeks after the close of the
> public comment period (January 4^th ), if the Proposal has changed
> in any way from the third draft put out for comment --
> notwithstanding the fact that both the Christmas and New Year
> holidays occur within that period. And, BTW, is it realistic to
> think that the CCWG will be able to review all the comments and
> draft responsive consensus amendments in the middle of those two
> weeks?____
>
> __ __
>
> So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded
> under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that
> differs quite substantially from the prior member model, prepare
> thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive
> adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments. ____
>
> __ __
>
> I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of
> the Accountability process as soon as possible. But I also have
> strong concerns that we are not providing sufficient time for review
> of a proposed structure that the community will have to live within
> for years, and likely decades.____
>
> __ __
>
> __ __
>
> __ __
>
> __ __
>
> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*____
>
> *Virtualaw LLC*____
>
> *1155 F Street, NW*____
>
> *Suite 1050*____
>
> *Washington, DC 20004*____
>
> *202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct*____
>
> *202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax*____
>
> *202-255-6172 <tel:202-255-6172>/cell**____*
>
> *__ __*
>
> *Twitter: @VlawDC*____
>
> ____
>
> */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*____
>
> __ __
>
> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Bernard Turcotte
> *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM
> *To:* Accountability Cross Community
> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary____
>
> __ __
>
> All,____
>
> __ __
>
> Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary
> which will be discussed on the call tomorrow.____
>
> __ __
>
> Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been
> working almost around the clock.____
>
> __ __
>
> Bernard Turcotte____
>
> Staff Support____
>
> __ __
>
> for the co-chairs.____
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date:
> 10/25/15
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.____
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list