[CCWG-ACCT] The Proposed F2F Meeting in LA

[Paul Rosenzweig]

Colleagues

 

I want to pick up on something that Phil just mentioned (more as an aside)
and make it an affirmative point of discussion within the list - whether or
not we should have a F2F meeting with the Board in Los Angeles.

 

By way of background, I think the general sense is that the dialogue with
the Board was not a success (in the sense that it was a positive step toward
resolution and a successful transition).  While I am sure that some on this
list disagree (most notably the Board members) I have a clear sense from
reading the transcript, the chat log and the messages on this list
(including Malcolm's excellent discussion of the issue which highlights the
ambiguity in the Board's statements) that most of us see the meeting as, at
best, a wash and at worst the harbinger of bad results.

 

>From my personal vantage point, I think the reasons for that is clear - lack
of preparation and definition.  There was no pre-meeting exchange of written
views from the Board to narrow the issues; there was no agreement on a
concrete set of discussion points; and quite clearly the Board has not yet
coalesced around a uniform viewpoint.  On many occasions, the Board was left
saying "we don't know for sure but we have many questions" and on the few
points that they were firm on (e.g. the opposition to the Single Member
model) the Board's reasons were not well-articulated and, to some degree, a
surprise to the community.

 

That kind of poor preparation of significant meetings is a formula for
failure - and it is precisely why the dialog did not go as well as anyone
would have liked.  

 

If we rush to the F2F in Los Angeles (in 2 weeks time! Or maybe 3) without
better preparation, that meeting, too will be unsatisfactory.  Here, in my
view, is what needs to happen:

 

1)      The Board needs to adopt a formal written response to the CCWG
proposal - not a set of bullet points and not a summary of legal analysis by
an outside lawyer with which it may not completely agree, but a full
response with both its objections to the CCWG model; its reasons for the
objections; its alternate proposal; and its justification for the same.   

2)      The CCWG needs to take those comments and conduct a thorough
analysis of them; responding as appropriate.  Again, not just a quick
lawyers analysis (which was helpful but does not answer the fundamental
questions) but rather a full-scale justification for
accepting/rejecting/modifying the Board's views.  And this response needs to
take into account, as well, the responses of others in the community (all of
which will not be compiled until the end of this week).

3)      Only when the disagreements remaining between the Board and the CCWG
are narrowed; well-defined; and clearly articulated would it be worth having
a F2F meeting at which views can be expressed; compromises (perhaps)
reached; and agreements to disagree finalized.

 

That process CANNOT happen on the time line of a late September meeting with
the Board.  I have no doubt that such a meeting will fail for being
ill-prepared if we attempt it.  It is very likely that such a meeting COULD
happen in Dublin in the days immediately before the ICANN meeting, but no
sooner.  I realize that this likely means that no final proposal will be
available to the community in Dublin - but given the Board's fundamental
objections that is now beyond possibility.   If the Board were to recede and
agree that the CCWG proposal is the fundamental core of what will go to the
NTIA, then the timing can be restored - but if it insists on discussing its
proposal (which, I am sorry Wolfgang, is absolutely NOT basic agreement - no
matter how hard you wish it to be) in detail and attempting to modify the
CCWG proposal then the timeline must shift.

 

I am, of course, only a participant, not a member.  So I have no "vote" in
this matter.  But it would be my firm recommendation that the Co-Chairs
respectfully decline the Board's invitation to Los Angeles and schedule a
meeting with the Board in due course once the Board actually has a formal
position to put forward.

 

Cheers

Paul

 

Paul Rosenzweig

Red Branch Consulting, PLLC

509 C St. NE

Washington, DC 20002

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

www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> 

www.paulrosenzweigesq.com <http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/>  

Link to my PGP Key
<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150907/7881e472/attachment.html>