[CCWG-ACCT] Timeline scenarios - initial draft for comments
Matthew Shears
mshears at cdt.org
Sun Oct 11 08:17:39 UTC 2015
Likewise. Excellent suggestions. Readability and clarity will be key
to militating perceptions of complexity.
On 11/10/2015 04:08, Jordan Carter wrote:
> I completely agree.
>
> 1) A readable, simple high level summary is one report and should in
> my view be our core "output".
>
> 2) Then a chapter by chapter "operationalisation" report that explains
> the design intent and details, more clear but maybe about the same
> length as the body of our current report.
>
> 3) Then a report that is the detailed draft Bylaws framework that sets
> out precisely how it would / could look in the rules.
>
> 4) Then a process / options considered etc report.
>
> They all have different audiences. 4) is vital for NTIA and for policy
> focused people. 3) is the concrete and crystal clear detail we haven't
> yet provided. 2) explains the logic. 1) presents the vision.
>
> Jordan
>
>
> On 8 October 2015 at 04:52, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Given that communication and readability is one of our major
> challenges I agree strongly with Malcolm that a rushed drafting
> process is not in our best interests.
>
> Further to that point, I think we need to rethink how we
> communicate much of what we are trying to communicate, in terms of
> format, providing readable overviews as opposed to immediately
> plunging into mechanics, etc., etc.
>
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net
> <mailto:malcolm at linx.net>> 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
> <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523>
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Skype: jordancarter
> Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
>
> /A better world through a better Internet /
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151011/f89ffddd/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list