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

Fri Nov 20 06:59:33 UTC 2015

I think what Avri was pointing out was that there is undue discussion
happening on a US based holiday which isn't the case for other nations,
and I think she finds that unfair.
I don't think she was  being offensive.
On 20 Nov 2015 12:25, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Avri,
> It is selfish that you said you do not worry about other Nations, holiday.
> Why other Nations should be worried about your holiday.
> This is offensive and humiliation
> Pls correct your statement before I escalate it to the highest level in
> the world including media
> Kavouss.
>
>   .
> .
>  .
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 19 Nov 2015, at 19:23, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would point out that we have not worried about other nations' holidays
> > quite as much as we seem to be worrying about this one.
> >
> > Perhaps if we schedule it for the nether hours (0100 - 0600) in the
> > continental US, it won't interfere with anyone's holiday schedule.
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 19-Nov-15 10:55, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151120/a8e7798a/attachment.html>