[CCWG-ACCT] Timeline and next steps (updated)

Thu Nov 19 16:50:31 UTC 2015

These concerns are well stated, Paul.

Personally, I have repeatedly voiced concern that haste will make waste -- that in a last-minute rush we will miss critical gaps or errors that will chew up more time down the line, or that cause the transition to fail.

I cannot seriously believe that a 21-day comment period assures transition success but that a 9 or 19 day extension dooms it. 

I would  be much less concerned if the third proposal was simply a refined version of the second, but is in fact a significant deviation, going from a member model that would have provided all the statutory powers of a California public benefit corporation to a designator model in which we seem to be relying on the threat of using a "nuclear option" of Board removal (individual members or the entire Board) via an escalation process that requires a very high level of community consuensus. There are also critical outstanding issues that remain unresolved at this late date.

As we will have to live with the final adopted proposal for years or decades to come it is very important that we have a full understanding of whether it  provides adequate accountability via feasible tools and processes.

Institutionally, I have shared the revised timeline with the BC and asked for feedback regarding whether BC members believe it is adequate. To the extent that BC members have previously weighed in they have indicated a preference for a timeline of at least 30 days.

Finally, I have received the invitation to the call on Thanksgiving day in the US and have indicated my strong opposition to scheduling a call on that day.

Best regards to all.

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

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

________________________________________
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig [paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:55 AM
To: 'Nigel Roberts'; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Timeline and next steps (updated)

Nigel

I use "close to the border" to accommodate the possibility that our
co-chairs, who are non-American, simply did not realize how utterly
unrealistic that proposal is for a holiday meeting.  I, for one, will not
attend nor even consider attending and I'm on the borderline of urging my
fellow Americans to boycott.

As for the broader point about the rapid pace of what we are doing, I
actually have a bit of sympathy for the co-chairs.  They are under immense
pressure to keep this moving from ICANN and NTIA and they (and others in the
community) are possessed of the mistaken belief that there is something
magical about our current time line, as if failing to meet it will turn us
all into pumpkins.  As to =that= aspect of it, I agree with you that it is
quite deliberate; quite exclusionary; and quite unfortunate.

To be candid, I would not object to the pace if I did not perceive that it
was actually creating error -- error in process and error in substance.  On
the process side we have:

-- Cutting comment period from traditional 40 days to 21 (for a report that
will SIGNIFICANTLY diverge from the two earlier drafts in many ways, thereby
increasing, rather than decreasing the need for thoughtful review by the
community);
-- Reducing comment period for non-English speakers to 9 days;
-- Effectively eliminating ability of dissenters to formally voice
objections by scheduling.

On the substantive side we have:
-- Put off development of the IRP ("the crown jewel" of our proposal) to a
post-transition implementation team;
-- Moved to finalize a draft report by TOMORROW 2359 UTC when there is still
utter lack of consensus on two critical issues, viz:
        -- Role of GAC/ST-18
        -- Mission statement of ICANN (the "other critical pillar") of our
proposal.

Perhaps these concerns can be fixed in the drafting, but I doubt it.  We are
now perilously close to acting in a way that calls the fundamental
legitimacy of our work product into question.  The phrase in carpentry is
"measure twice; cut once"

I apologize to the list for the somewhat angry tone of this note -- but the
Thanksgiving call proposal is for me just the straw that breaks the camel's
back.

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: Thursday, November 19, 2015 9:48 AM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Timeline and next steps (updated)

Paul

What do you mean 'close to the border'.

I know I'm only a Participant, and not a Member, but I don't care if its
deliberate or not.

What matters is the EFFECT not the motivation.

So I say it *IS* exclusionary.

Since, to borrow a phrase, "I have to work for a living".
(In other words I have an already-scheduled meeting)

These deadlines are artificial, and DESIGNED to be exclusionary, so why are
you surprised?

On 19/11/15 14:39, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
> Really?  You are going to have a critical review call on Thanksgiving
> day?  I know this is a bit US-centric of me but this goes beyond the
> bounds of my tolerance.  I have no standing to object, but this is
> pretty close to the border of being deliberately exclusionary.
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq 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
>
<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9>
>
> *From:*León Felipe Sánchez Ambía [mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 19, 2015 8:21 AM
> *To:* Accountability Cross Community
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Cc:* cc staff all <cc-staff at lists.ibiblio.org>
> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] Timeline and next steps (updated)
>
> An earlier version of this email was sent mistakenly so please disregard
> the earlier version and have this version as the final version.
>
> =================
>
> Dear all,
>
> As indicated on call #68, we have designed a detailed roadmap of key
> dates and milestones toward finalizing theThird Draft Proposal that we
> invite you to read and mark in your calendars.
>
> In order to meet our 30 November deadline, it will be important that we
> all comply with this calendar of deliverables to ensure feedback and
> edits are incorporated into the Third Proposal in a prompt and
> appropriate fashion:
>
> 20-Nov-15
>
>
>
> Full Proposal content is delivered to CCWG by 23:59 UTC
>
> 21-23 Nov-15
>
>
>
> CCWG Co-Chairs and Rapporteurs gather feedback from Working Party
> groups, legal counsel and Advisors
>
> 23-Nov-15
>
>
>
> CCWG final comments on Full Proposal content due  by 23:59 UTC
>
> 24-Nov-15
>
>
>
> Weekly call #69
>
> 24-25-Nov 15
>
>
>
> Back and forth and finalizing content with Co-Chairs, Writing team
> holding the pen
>
> 25-Nov-15
>
>
>
> Content due to translation / formatting by 23:59 UTC
>
> 26-Nov-15
>
>
>
> Additional CCWG-ACCT call (call #70)
>
> 30-Nov-15
>
>
>
> Begin Phase 2 of Consideration by Chartering Organizations
>
> 30-Nov-15
>
>
>
> Begin professional proofreading/final editing
>
> 12 -Dec-15
>
>
>
> Translations ready
>
> 20-Dec-15
>
>
>
> Delivery of final proofreading/editing
>
> 21-Dec-15
>
>
>
> End of public comment and first close for Chartering Organizations to
> indicate support for recommendations
>
> 24-Dec-15
>
>
>
> Staff summary of public comments and Chartering Organization support for
> recommendation
>
> Please note that in consideration of the work load, we recommend holding
> an additional next week on Thursday  26 November at 14:00-16:00 UTC. For
> US-based colleagues, the timeslot was selected so that it is early in
> day for you in consideration of the U.S. holiday.
>
> We recognize that we are operating under tight deadlines to produce our
> Third Draft Proposal and as always, thank you for your cooperation and
> hard work.
>
> Best regards
>
> Mathieu, Thomas, León
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
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
Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15
Internal Virus Database is out of date.