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

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Fri Nov 20 13:51:22 UTC 2015


Hi,

I think I was not clear.

what i meant was:

we have not worried about other nation's holidays,
therefore
we should not be worrying about US holidays

hopefully the does not not offend or humiliate you.

avri


On 20-Nov-15 01:54, Kavouss Arasteh 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
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list