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

Drazek, Keith kdrazek at verisign.com
Mon Oct 12 01:02:24 UTC 2015


Completely agree. I volunteer to contribute to this effort.

Regards,
Keith


On Oct 11, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:

Jordan,

Well stated.

Greg

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<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 <<mailto:malcolm at linx.net>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/> 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<tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Skype: jordancarter
Web: <http://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<mailto: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<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
+ 44 771 247 2987<tel:%2B%2044%20771%20247%202987>


________________________________
[Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

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


_______________________________________________
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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151012/0698e827/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list