[CCWG-ACCT] Comments on the third draft proposal

[Paul Rosenzweig]

Fair enough.  I suppose then, that while I share your concern (having also
missed the comment deadline for this summary) mine is broader.  I have a
real sense that many fundamental issues remain to be settled and/or are
being reopened and/or we are just recognizing some unanticipated collateral
consequences of decisions taken.  I fear that the overall process is too
rushed as well.

Regards
Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key



-----Original Message-----
From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 4:18 PM
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
Cc: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Comments on the third draft proposal

Dear Paul,

Based upon your examples, I believe that you have misinterpreted my remarks.


Both of us have been following this process fairly closely since Dublin, and
we are fully informed about the many shifts in position that have taken
place since Dublin.    My protest against the deadline was specifically
because of the impossible task of responding to a deadline of hours in
reviewing a document. In fact, since I posted, it has been pointed out to me
that the deadline was 1700 UTC, not 1700 in Joao Pessoa, so that when I was
informed about the document, the deadline had already passed!

Now this document is not the formal third version of the proposal, so I know
that this is not the last chance to comment.  It isn't; that will happen in
December.  What I wanted to do was to ensure that there were no egregious
deviations from my own sense of what would be a sensible manner of
proceeding to a mutually acceptable result.

There is something unsettling about commenting on what was originally meant
to be a summary document when the underlying document does not yet exist.
Several people have expressed their concern about that.  So I regard the
document just circulated rather as a predictive document, a document that
foreshadows the things to come.  That's fine and it's useful.  Most of
what's in that document was expected to be familiar, and it was, but given
the amount of flux that i sensed on the list in the last week, I was
concerned that some fundamental changes might have occurred that would give
me concern.

I do thank the co-chairs for doing their best to maintain the schedule, but
i would hope that comments on this document be accepted and be actionable
for a few more days.

George

> On Nov 13, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Paul Rosenzweig
<paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> 
> I am not often in agreement with George on many substantive issues :-)  
> But on this issue of process he is 100% accurate.  A =partial= catalog 
> of things we are now considering that are substantially different from 
> where we were the day before Dublin started include:
> 
> Shift from Member to Designator
> Mission Statement with or without limitations on contractual 
> obligations GAC engagement and ST-18 And, of course, today's addition:  
> Availability/non-availability of SO-specific veto or proposal 
> authority.
> 
> I get, completely, the need for us to not dally.  But these issues are 
> so significant (I would say they lie at the very core of what we are 
> doing) that they MUST be resolved now.  They cannot be pushed to WS2 
> and they cannot be hurried any faster.  Add into this the prospect 
> that the next public comment period will span the December holiday 
> time (admittedly, a cultural circumstance specific to only some of the 
> Members and Participants) and we gravely risk the credibility of this 
> process by rushing it.  My limited perception is that a major process 
> foul is the most likely way to have our report rejected -- either by 
> the chartering organizations or the NTIA
> 
> Paul
> 
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> Link to my PGP Key
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel at channelisles.net]
> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 2:39 PM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Comments on the third draft proposal
> 
> George is on the money.
> 
> Time has run out.  I suggest that the inclusiveness and legitimacy of 
> the accountability process has been fundamentally jeopardized, if not 
> completely destroyed.
> 
> Some good work has been done, but I submit that the artificial 
> deadlines and the way that fundamentally new concepts have been 
> introduced 'out of thin air' have significantly prejudiced the chances of
success, possibly fatally.
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community