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

[Mueller, Milton L]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> I think this is a matter of disagreement, and not a fact.  If one accepts that, in
> good faith, the chairs have accepted that external deadline as real, then the
> internal dates are neither artificial nor designed to be exclusionary.

The external deadline _is_ artificial. Please provide any evidence to the contrary. 

I was on the ICG and we ruminated over these timelines for weeks. I know what the constraints are. A week to ten days over the New Year's period does not break anything. The loss of legitimacy and quality on the other hand are very likely to prove costly. 

> If one believes that the external deadline is artificial, then I can see an
> argument that the internal ones are also thereby artificial.  I think the claim
> that the external deadline is artificial, however, is need of rather better
> arguments (which boil down to, "I disagree") than I have so far seen.  As

I have seen multiple reasonable arguments for adding 10 days to the current timeline to allow careful review by the lawyers and a real public comment period. I haven't seen ANY plausible argument about how this clashes with the US political constraints. The current estimates of how much time it takes the NTIA to approve it, subject to the oversight of congress, are very imprecise simply because the NTIA is not fully in control and needs to be conservative. 

> I still think it is quite unfair to say the dates are designed to be exclusionary.

I do not believe they are "designed" to be exclusionary. I think they are just artificial and a product of panic.