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

[Izumi Okutani]

I agree with Andrew, putting on the CRISP Chair hat. 
It's not only the CCWG Chairs and the ICANN Board but there are wider community waiting, including the numbers community.

I completely understand the challenges, being through this process as a CCWG member myself, and I think the progress we have made during Dublin and since then has been amazing, despite the challenges we have had.

At the same, as you may be aware, there had been strong concerns raised within some members of the CRISP Team during the Dublin Meeting. 
By the end of the Dublin meeting, while Jan 2016 wasn't as early as we would have hoped for, we recognised the CCWG has made great progress, we wanted to be respectful of the efforts and the progress. In fact, I had just re-emphasied it at the latest CRISP call.

I hope we can keep this good work and on a pragmatic note - 
Being one of the SOs, the ASO needs to go through the approval process and I agree it's important the proposal gets approved, addressing major comments within SOs and ACs.

In addressing this efficiently, the CCWG liaisons from ASO regularly update and summarize key issues online (in addition to update at the calls), seek for feedback within ASO and coordinate our opinion, so that major concerns from ASO are fed back to the CCWG discussions, not just an individual opinion of the ASO CCWG members in developing the proposal - this should help us to be as ready possible to approve the final proposal smoothly. 

For the public comment, I like the idea shared by Steve DelBianco in Dublin. 

We can encourage individuals and organisations to be in sync/express comments through their SOs and ACs as much as where applicable, so we an efficiently review the public comments. Of course that shouldn't stop an organisation or an individual from expressing opinion different from SOs and ACs if needed, but it's something to keep in mind and can be done on best effort basis.

I think there are ways we can accommodate comments as described and I really would like to keep the good pace of our progress, and a balance of addressing key concerns but also moving forward.


Izumi


On 2015/11/11 3:56, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 04:15:14PM +0000, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>> The Co-Chairs and ICANN itself seem to prefer 'FAST'.
> 
> To be fair, the three IANA operational communities also have some
> stake in this work concluding.  The argument in Dublin was that the
> very aggressive timeline was only a positive-path scenario, and that
> if anything went wrong then the whole package, including the
> transition, looked to be in trouble.  That was the basis on which I
> observed that, while this sort of positive-path planning is never the
> best answer, sometimes you have to do it.  It was clear, for instance,
> that if the public comment came back with substantive changes needed
> that were not reflected in what the chartering organizations had
> approved, the whole plan fell apart.
> 
> That's a risk the community has to take to try to make the IANA
> transition happen, I think.  A year ago, the RIRs and the IETF spent
> lots of time at inconvenient points of the calendar in order to get
> their proposals ready in time for the then-deadline.  They did it.
> What I saw in Dublin was inspiring: the CCWG was pulling together to
> achieve a similar victory, despite the long odds.  This is certainly a
> hard thing to do, but I'm super heartened with the way different
> expressions of multi-stakeholder processes work out (though messy in
> process) in the end.  If I can help at all, I'm here to try to do so;
> but in the meantime, I hope we can agree that the situation is not
> hopeless.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
>