[CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary
Phil Corwin
psc at vlaw-dc.com
Tue Nov 10 18:01:05 UTC 2015
For the record – “While I recognise that it's a tight schedule, it may be good to recall that this was agreed upon in Dublin and infact circulated publicly so people are waiting in expectation.” – that is not accurate as regards a detailed timeline on which a feasibility judgment could be made.
The CCWG+Timeline v1 that I and others received is dated 10/29, one week after the end of ICANN 54 Dublin.
And the detailed timeline for GNSO (Council) consideration was not received by Councilors until four days ago, on Friday, November 6th, with this accompanying message from the acting Chair, “please find attached the updated proposed timeline for the CCWG Accountability path. Please review and provide feedback to allow us to assess whether the proposed timeline is realistic with regard to soliciting feedback and/or approval from your constituencies”. Upon reviewing it I immediately began raising concerns that it might not be “realistic” for my constituency.
I do appreciate your willingness to consider a timeline extension. My personal view is that the public comment period deadline should be pushed back from the current date of December 21st to at least December 30th, to permit a minimum of 30 days public comment on the full and detailed 3rd draft CCWG proposal to be published on November 30th -- and that the Council and other Chartering Organizations should not be asked to consider the initial consideration and approval of the 3rd draft proposal, and adoption of a formal statement on it, until about two weeks after the comment period closes (January 13th ) so that they all have an opportunity to review what could again be a large volume of comments.
Those adjustments would not necessarily affect the timing of a Chartering organization F2F in January, if it is deemed necessary. If the public comments indicate that further adjustments were required a final proposal could be agreed upon within the CCWG and considered by GNSO Council and the other Chartering Organizations by mid-February, with delivery of a final report to the Board in the third week of February – about one month later than the current projected date of January 22nd.
I believe that modest increase in consideration time will be more than offset by the avoidance of potential landmines in an inadequately vetted Proposal.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
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] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 12:01 PM
To: Robin Gross
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary
Someone have said what works within numbers may not necessarily be applicable in names, otherwise I would have said this is just a similar scenario of numbers last year. ;-)
While I recognise that it's a tight schedule, it may be good to recall that this was agreed upon in Dublin and infact circulated publicly so people are waiting in expectation. It may be good to also remember that the CCWG output is the only major reason why I will say the work of the ICG is not considered complete (due to dependencies). There are external reasons why this process needs to move efficiently fast and those reasons are legitimate.
Nevertheless, at this stage I am somewhat doubtful whether an accurate report can be released in 5days time. Perhaps the timeline be push by 1 to 2 weeks further. That said, it's important to note we ourselves are the ones introducing more issues (and reopening already closed issues) which ofcourse impacts on the available time.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 10 Nov 2015 17:35, "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
I agree and maintain the objections I raised in Dublin when this timeline was proposed. It simply is backwards to have final public comment *before* the details of our report are made known - especially since we are making significant changes to what we had before and as we have heard a mission times "the devil is in the detail".
The pressure to rush this through immediately cannot be allowed to eviscerate the important public consultations and bottom-up processes we allegedly claim to adhere to. Let's not undermine the legitimacy of this process in the rush to complete the work according to exterior timelines. WE set the timeline for the IANA transition, not the other way around.
Robin
On Nov 10, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> 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>
>> <mailto: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>>
>> [mailto: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> <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>
>> <mailto: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<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<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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
________________________________
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151110/d030cf7f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list