[CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary

Tue Nov 10 17:53:52 UTC 2015

Thanks Greg, all.  Agree and share the same concerns.

Matthew

On Tuesday, 10 November 2015, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 3rd 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 15th, the full and detailed draft proposal
>> won’t be out until two weeks later, on November 30th. 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 30th is only three weeks prior to the December 21st 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 3rd draft CCWG Proposal” on December 5th,  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 18th.)*
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 5th
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> *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 30th to December 21st.* For the Council it is even
>> less time, as it is scheduled to consider the approval of the
>> CCWG-Accountability 3rd CCWG Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO
>> statement on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 17th, with the Council
>> Statement being submitted one day later on December 18th.  Then
>>  Councillors are supposed to consider final documents and motions as early
>> as two weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4th),
>> 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 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
>>
>> *202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
>>
>> *202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>>
>>
>>
>> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>
>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>> 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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20151110/0223258c/attachment-0001.html>