[CCWG-ACCT] Comments on the third draft proposal

George Sadowsky george.sadowsky at gmail.com
Fri Nov 13 19:12:22 UTC 2015

Those of us in Joao Pessoa are fully aware of the utter ridiculousness of this deadline, and I trust that it will be rescinded in favor of something more reasonable. Note that there is no way that I, or for that matter most everyone else, can read this carefully in the next two hours with everything that is going on here.  

I learned about this deadline by accident, with only two hours to the deadline.  Soon after I found a quiet place to start  reading the document, the convention center crew arrived and started to disassemble the room around me, including the chair and table that I was using.  Other members of the ICANN Board and staff are so occupied with other activities that they may not even know about the deadline.

As personal comments, I suggest the following:

1. The final text of the mission statement is uncertain.  In order to contribute to the success of both the transition and the post-transition activities of ICANN, it has to satisfy multiple masters, and it is unclear to me that we are near convergence on what that text should be.  I have no concrete suggestions to make, but I know that serious work is underway.

2. There still seems to be some serious disagreement regarding a number of items as to what should be put in WS1 and WS2 respectively.  

3. I agree with Bruce Tonkin that the Board is likely to approach items in WS2 in a manner similar to our approach to items in WS1.  However, IMHO the content of WS2 cannot be open ended and, inter alia, satisfy the requirement for simplicity and completeness that has been repeatedly mentioned by NTIA, as well as other objections to such open endedness and the presumption of automatic acceptance. 

[The second room that I found in which to work is now being disassembled from under me]

4. I note that the number of ACs and SOs required to dismiss the entire Board has remained at four in spite of comments suggesting that this may incompatible with the "one objection is not sufficient" "principle" depending upon the GAC's decision to enter or not enter a council.  I support this decision to make no change in this threshold.

Time has run out.  I suggest that the inclusiveness and legitimacy of this step in the accountability process is jeopardized, if not completely destroyed, unless a new and more realistic deadline is set for comments on the third draft of this new document.


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list