[CCWG-ACCT] The Proposed F2F Meeting in LA

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello Paul,


>>  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

Actually I think most of us on the Board agree with you on this point.   That is why I am trying to make the next communication much more explicit and clear on what we fully agree with, where we agree with the concept but suggest an improvement, or where we suggestion an alternative.   We are planning to adopt the same 1A, 1B, and 2 notation that we used for the GAC advice on new gTLDs some years ago.


>>  From my personal vantage point, I think the reasons for that is clear - lack of preparation and definition.  

Agreed.



>>  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.   

Agreed.  We are working on this and hope to have it within the public comment deadline.

>>  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).

Makes sense.

>>  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.

Agreed.

I see there is some value on some discussions in Los Angeles - but maybe we need to break it into pieces.   Ie not attempt to cover everything, but perhaps focus on some of the areas where we are close to agreement and where both sides are sufficiently prepared for a discussion to make sense.   E.g a part 1 in LA and a part 2 in Dublin.   

I tend to think the sole member model versus ICANN legal proposal will not be ready for discussion in LA.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin