[CCWG-ACCT] Timeline scenarios - initial draft for comments

[Robin Gross]

Any proposal for a new CCWG timeline that does not include the necessary 30-day public comment period for our revised proposal is not likely to get support within this group or the larger community.  We can't short-cut important public input points over exaggerated urgency claims.

Robin

On Oct 6, 2015, at 8:34 AM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:

> 
> 
> On 06/10/2015 13:58, Mathieu Weill wrote:
>> Dear colleagues,
>> 
>> The co-chairs had tasked staff to highlight what would be a plausible
>> timeline scenario after our group agrees on a proposed way forward in
>> Dublin.
>> We investigated a scenario where we would not need a public comment, as
>> a well as a scenario where an extra pûblic comment would be needed.
>> 
>> The attached slides present an initial draft which we submit for
>> comments from the group.
>> 
>> In summary, in the absence of an extra PC period, we could deliver the
>> final report on Nov 20 to the chartering organisations at the earliest.
>> If we need an extra public comment, delivery would be around end of
>> january - beginning of february 2016.
> 
> Seven days to redraft the report, and seven days to review it.
> 
> That means only seven days in Working Parties really thrashing the
> detailed wording. Whoever has their hand on the pen will likely need at
> least half that time to come up with their first draft (perhaps more,
> depending on their personal schedule). So we're really only talking
> about two or three days for detailed discussion of alternative phrasing
> for specific clauses.
> 
> Is that really enough?
> 
> Maybe enough to get something on paper. But hardly enough time to polish
> the language, to make it legible and accessible, and to make sure our
> explanations properly consider what the uninitiated reader might wonder.
> We'd also be taking big risks with unforeseen omissions and errata (as
> with our previous drafts).
> 
> I think it's this kind of time pressure that has gotten us much of the
> criticism we've had already. I know this is not welcome advice, but
> Aesop's fable of the hare and tortoise springs to mind.
> 
> Or how does Public Comment Period 4 grab you?
> 
> I propose that we give an extra two weeks for WPs to work on the text.
> 
> So replace this section
> "3-10 November: Drafting of report language
> 10 November: Report sections sent to CCWG for review & CCWG call for
> rapporteurs to walk through edits"
> 
> 
> with
> 
> "3-10 November: Drafting of report language
> 10 November: Deadline for delivery of draft language to WPs by rapporteurs
> 10-24 November: Review of draft language by WPs
> 24 November: Report sections sent to CCWG for review & CCWG call for
> rapporteurs to walk through edits"
> 
> with the lengths of the rest unchanged, resulting in a close of public
> comments on 14th Jan.
> 
> -- 
>            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
> London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
> 
>                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
>           21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
> 
>         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151006/45b5d7db/signature.asc>