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

[Alan Greenberg]

Thank you Izumi and Andrew. I support your position.

Alan 
-- 
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On November 11, 2015 8:15:19 AM GMT-03:00, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>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
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>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/20151111/19e9e4c3/attachment.html>