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

Sun Oct 11 22:07:48 UTC 2015

Jordan,

Well stated.

Greg

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I agree with the proposed structure of the Report. And fully agree with
> caution/ warning that we should not rush for the preparation of the draft.
> Elements that are carefully prepared and fully examined nay be submitted
> and those yet to be   submitted will carefully be prepared , examined and
> submitted once completed. NO rush
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 11 Oct 2015, at 10:17, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>
> 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> 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>
>> 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
>>> <%2B44%2020%207645%203523>
>>>    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>>>  London Internet Exchange | <http://publicaffairs.linx.net/>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> 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
> Skype: jordancarter
> Web: <http://www.internetnz.nz>www.internetnz.nz
>
> *A better world through a better Internet *
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community at icann.orghttps://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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151011/e2981526/attachment.html>