<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">While others address the substance of this first full draft of the executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns about the timeline for
public comments – including statements from and consideration by the Chartering Organizations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there had been any community discussion to extend the comment period, and this is the reply I made,
with special emphasis on my role as a member of the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin consideration of draft GNSO comments regarding the 3<sup>rd</sup> draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th ---<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">“I don’t know of any discussion yet to extend the comment period, but wouldn’t be all that surprised if there is one, given that this designator model is a
major revision and deviation from the prior member model.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline, especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent the BC. While the summary report
(first draft of which I just forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15<sup>th</sup>, the full and detailed draft proposal won’t be out until two weeks later, on November 30<sup>th</sup>. I’ve been through enough legislative processes to know
that staff-drafted summaries can never be relied upon to fully and accurately convey the language and potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in the underlying text, and that there is no substitute for its line-by-line dissection.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">November 30<sup>th</sup> is only three weeks prior to the December 21<sup>st</sup> deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form and submit
a fully informed comment, especially for trade associations and other groups which must consider multiple inputs. <b>Even more worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the Council is supposed to “Share draft GNSO comment on 3<sup>rd</sup> draft CCWG
Proposal” on December 5<sup>th</sup>, just five days after the full text is released. As I am supposed to represent your consensus views, it means the BC has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss the full text, and that Councilors must then attempt in the
short remaining time to reconcile the separate views of those they represent into a single consensus draft GNSO comment. (I do note that the Council has almost two additional weeks to massage its comment, as the target for submission is December 18<sup>th</sup>.)<o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its consensus views
<u>prior to</u> any opportunity to review all the public comments. This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council makes final determinations only
<u>after</u> it reviews all public comments. It also puts a large degree of pressure on those constituencies that Councilors represent to instruct us on their views long before the comment period has concluded.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists for a reason. I’m not for undue delay, but I am for adequate scrutiny, and I am concerned that
this timeline does not provide sufficient time for that. “<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning’s CCWG call, just concluded.
<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to limit ICANN’s ability to “regulate” use of the Internet. On page 30 of the Summary memo it says
this:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">• Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to the Domain Name<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">System (DNS)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">o
<b>ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the<o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">content that such services carry or provide.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">(entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">names)
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">[Emphasis added]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous discussion there is still no agreement on what that language should be, or even the scope of the
limitation it is trying to describe (in fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that second point). So on that key subject no one can draft an intelligent and informed comment based upon the high level summary document to be released on 11/15, and
must await the full text promised for 11/30 – yet Councilors are supposed to survey those they represent and begin consideration of a draft GNSO comment by December 5<sup>th</sup>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Let’s be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully informed public comments can be developed and submitted is presently only three weeks, from
November 30<sup>th</sup> to December 21<sup>st</sup>.</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> For the Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to consider the approval
</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">of the CCWG-Accountability 3<sup>rd</sup> CCWG Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3<sup>rd</sup> draft CCWG Proposal on December 17<sup>th</sup>,
with the Council Statement being submitted one day later on December 18<sup>th</sup>. Then Councillors are supposed to consider final documents and motions as early as two weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4<sup>th</sup>), if the
Proposal has changed in any way from the third draft put out for comment -- notwithstanding the fact that both the Christmas and New Year holidays occur within that period. And, BTW, is it realistic to think that the CCWG will be able to review all the comments
and draft responsive consensus amendments in the middle of those two weeks?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that differs quite
substantially from the prior member model, prepare thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of the Accountability process as soon as possible. But I also have strong concerns
that we are not providing sufficient time for review of a proposed structure that the community will have to live within for years, and likely decades.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Virtualaw LLC</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">1155 F Street, NW</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Suite 1050</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Washington, DC 20004</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-559-8597/Direct</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-559-8750/Fax</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-255-6172/cell</span></b><b><span style="color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Twitter: @VlawDC</span></b><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey</span></i></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Bernard Turcotte<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Accountability Cross Community<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">All,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bernard Turcotte<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Staff Support<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">for the co-chairs.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="1" width="100%" noshade="" style="color:#A0A0A0" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">No virus found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15<br>
Internal Virus Database is out of date.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>