<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14.3999996185303px;line-height:17.2799987792969px">LS: quote...I want to reiterate again that there is no hard and fast deadline for this transition. September 2015 has been a target date because that is when the base period of our contract with ICANN expires. But this should not be seen as a deadline. If the community needs more time, we have the ability to extend the IANA functions contract for up to four years. It is up to the community to determine a timeline that works best for stakeholders as they develop a proposal that meets NTIA’s conditions, but also works. end quote</span><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14.3999996185303px;line-height:17.2799987792969px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14.3999996185303px;line-height:17.2799987792969px">Above remarks suggests that the community should call it's own deadline that "works best" for stakeholders... if community feels that Sept 2015 date is unrealistic?</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14.3999996185303px;line-height:17.2799987792969px">RD</span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><br><div><font size="4"><span style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif">Rudi Daniel</span></font><div><font size="4"><span style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif"><i><a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774" target="_blank">danielcharles consulting</a><br></i></span></font></div><div><b><span style="font-size:large"><font color="#006600"><font size="4"><span style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif">"sugarcane"</span></font><br></font></span></b></div><div><font color="#006600"><span style="font-size:large"><b><br></b></span></font><div><span style="font-size:large"><br></span></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Colleagues<br>
<br>
Since "timelines" are to be discussed next week in Singapore (and since I<br>
will not be there) I wanted to raise a question/issue that has been<br>
troubling me for several weeks and with which I've been struggling in terms<br>
of reconciling a suitable answer. My question begins with a single<br>
assumption -- that the CCWG recommends to the Board accountability changes,<br>
at least one of which requires a change in the Bylaws of ICANN. That is by<br>
no means certain, of course, given our ongoing discussions but I think it is<br>
fair to characterize those discussions as making such a recommendation<br>
reasonably likely.<br>
<br>
Based on earlier conversations within the CCWG and input from Bruce Tonkin,<br>
here is what I understand the Bylaw amendment process to entail: (1) Board<br>
of Directors acceptance of the recommendation from the working group; (2)<br>
drafting of the specific wording of the bylaw amendment and corresponding<br>
changes to related provisions by the ICANN General Counsel's office; (3)<br>
posting of the proposed language for public review and comment, (in the past<br>
this seems typically to have been for 21 to 45 days); and, finally, (4) a<br>
formal vote to adopt the bylaw amendments, which requires a two-thirds<br>
majority of the Board.<br>
<br>
One final preliminary factual point. Pursuant to the terms of the NTIA IANA<br>
Functions Contract with ICANN: "The Government may extend the term of this<br>
contract by written notice to the Contractor within 15 calendar days before<br>
the expiration of the contract; provided that the Government gives the<br>
Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least 30<br>
calendar days before the contract expires. The preliminary notice does not<br>
commit the Government to an extension." In other words, if the NTIA were to<br>
choose to extend the contract it must provide preliminary notice to ICANN no<br>
later than August 31, 2015, and final notice of that decision no later than<br>
September 15, 2015.<br>
<br>
I am therefore uncertain how our timeline will fit with these requirements.<br>
I assume that in addition to the steps identified above there were need to<br>
be some interaction between the Board and NTIA by which NTIA would announces<br>
its conclusion that the proposed accountability measures (including the<br>
hypothetical Bylaw change) would satisfy the conditions that it has set for<br>
the transition. I also assume that the Board would simultaneously begin the<br>
public consultation process for the Bylaw amendment but would not vote to<br>
formally adopt the amendment until after that process concludes and the NTIA<br>
review has concluded -- no point in adopting a Bylaw that NTIA deems<br>
inadequate or unnecessary. And, finally, if a Bylaw amendment is necessary<br>
I assume that the NTIA would not renew the contract in the absence of a<br>
Bylaw amendment. So this is the timeline I see right now:<br>
<br>
June 30 -- CCWG transmits recommendations for accountability<br>
July 31 -- Final deadline for submitting recommendations to Board by ICG<br>
August 1 -- Board submits proposals to NTIA and Community -- concurrent<br>
August 21 -- Board closes public Comment period/NTIA approves<br>
August 22 -- Board votes "yes"<br>
<br>
As you can see, this is remarkably tight and assumes immediate concurrence<br>
in all recommendations by the Board (which may or may not be a reasonable<br>
assumption) as well as the absence of pushback either from the NTIA or the<br>
broader community<br>
-- hence my concern with timelines. This also assumes that in the end we<br>
agree that a commitment to implement a Bylaw change is sufficient for<br>
accountability purposes -- as opposed to the view of some (including me)<br>
that actual implementation is preferable. It appears to me inevitable that<br>
NTIA will have to file a protective notice of extension on August 31. And<br>
it seems almost equally certain that the NTIA will have to renew the<br>
contract.<br>
<br>
Is there a way to accelerate the timeline? I assume not. But I thought I<br>
would ask. If there isn't then what is a realistic extension timeline? 6<br>
months?<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
**NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***<br>
509 C St. NE<br>
Washington, DC 20002<br>
<br>
Paul Rosenzweig<br>
<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><br>
M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><br>
Skype: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739">+1 (202) 738-1739</a> or paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Adam Peake [mailto:<a href="mailto:adam.peake@icann.org">adam.peake@icann.org</a>]<br>
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 7:34 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Draft agenda CCWG meeting with the Board<br>
<br>
Proposed draft agenda for CCWG meeting with the Board. 11 am to 12 noon.<br>
Sunday Feb 8 03:00 - 04:00 UTC<br>
<br>
(1) A discussion about timelines, particularly around and leading up to<br>
ICANN 53 Buenos Aires<br>
<br>
(2) To clarify how the Board will handle CCWG's proposal, and any<br>
anticipated reasons why a proposal/part of a proposal might be refused?<br>
The anticipated process following any such refusal.<br>
<br>
(3) CCWG to provide an update of the two work avenues developed from the<br>
face-to-face discussions in Frankfurt, that is:<br>
* mechanisms that enable community empowerment over Board decisions with<br>
limited, strictly enumerated, last resort powers<br>
* mechanisms to enhance review and redress processes<br>
<br>
The meeting is not yet on the ICANN 52 Schedule, but the CCWG wiki is update<br>
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings</a><br>
<br>
Includes all meetings of the CCWG during the week.<br>
<br>
Thank you,<br>
<br>
Adam<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>