<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">+1 also.<div><br></div><div>Robin</div><div><br><div><div>On Nov 11, 2015, at 8:57 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">+1 to delaying the release of the Executive Summary.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I think it's imperative that the CCWG <b>review and approve</b> any final draft before it goes out as the work product of the CCWG. As such, the CCWG must <b>review the second draft</b> that takes into account the comments on this list. If that can be approved, great. If a third draft is needed before approval is granted, we'll deal with that.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">If the first draft we've reviewed (which has significant infirmities and gaps) is the last draft we see before this is released to the public, I think it would be wrong to say that that document has the support of the CCWG. Indeed, I am concerned that there could be a need for a "statement of non-support" from members of the CCWG. I hate to even think such a thing, because I am extremely supportive of the great work done by our co-chairs and our staff, and I am one who likes to work "within the process." But as of now, I am extremely uncomfortable with the status of this document.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Phil Corwin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com" target="_blank">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Thanks for your message, Thomas. As I think you are aware, none of the timeline concerns I have expressed are in any way a criticism of the work of the CCWG
members and participants, who have been performing heroically under difficult pressures.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I have no idea what the positions of other Councilors shall be, but in my view it is not realistic to think the Council will be in a position to take a consensus
position on the 3<sup>rd</sup> draft proposal at its December 5<sup>th</sup> meeting because that is just five days after the scheduled release of the actual, detailed language of the proposal. I am skeptical that the members of the BC, which I represent on
Council, will be able to fully comprehend all its nuances and have all their questions and concerns addressed in that short time, and until they have formed an informed position I will be constrained in my ability to contribute to a Council stance.
<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Now that the initial draft of the Executive Summary has been released it is even more clear that it cannot be relied upon as the basis for a positional decision
by Council, as the initial draft was redundant, incomplete, and unclear. Even if those deficiencies are substantially cured between now and its scheduled November 15<sup>th</sup> release date (just four days away), it seems inarguable that it will not be fully
reliable in that it will be the summary of a proposal of which key components will likely still remain unresolved as of November 15<sup>th</sup> – including some of the most important issues for the BC, such as ST 18 and the overall role of the GAC in the
post-transition environment, as well as ICANN Mission language which acceptably threads the needle between contract enforcement and impermissible forms of “regulation”.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">In my personal opinion the release of the Executive Summary should be delayed and made simultaneous with the release of the final draft Proposal to assure
that it accurately describes that draft.</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> As I commented in a post earlier this morning, “I have reviewed many Executive Summaries over the years, and have seem a wide
range of accuracy, comprehensiveness and clarity among them. But never in my life can I recall seeing an Executive Summary published when the underlying document it purported to summarize did not yet exist in final form. This an amazing new concept, though
one of questionable legitimacy and usefulness.”<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Finally, as to when the Council might responsibly and with adequate information take a position on the third draft Proposal, its January meeting seems like
a more appropriate venue, especially if held on January 21<sup>st</sup> rather than the 14<sup>th</sup> (noting that the current CCWG timeline calls for a Chartering organization F2F sometime between January 7<sup>th</sup> and 22<sup>nd</sup>, but that this
could change if the comment period deadlines are adjusted). <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">In regard to the comment deadlines, I made this suggestion in a separate email yesterday which I again put out for consideration by the CCWG and ICANN:<u></u><u></u></span></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">“My personal view is that the public comment period deadline should be pushed back from the current date of December 21<sup>st</sup>
to at least December 30<sup>th</sup>, to permit a minimum of 30 days public comment on the full and detailed 3<sup>rd</sup> draft CCWG proposal to be published on November 30<sup>th</sup> -- and that the Council and other Chartering Organizations should not
be asked to consider the initial consideration and approval of the 3<sup>rd</sup> draft proposal, and adoption of a formal statement on it, until about two weeks after the comment period closes (January 13<sup>th</sup> ) so that they all have an opportunity
to review what could again be a large volume of comments.<u></u><u></u></span></p><span class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Those adjustments would not necessarily affect the timing of a Chartering organization F2F in January, if it is deemed necessary. If
the public comments indicate that further adjustments were required a final proposal could be agreed upon within the CCWG and considered by GNSO Council and the other Chartering Organizations by mid-February, with delivery of a final report to the Board in
the third week of February – about one month later than the current projected date of January 22<sup>nd</sup>.
<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I believe that modest increase in consideration time will be more than offset by the avoidance of potential landmines in an inadequately
vetted Proposal.”<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">As can be seen, my proposal for a comment deadline adjustment would result in no more than one months’ delay in delivery of a final Proposal to the Board, which
I do not see as inordinate given the profound importance of getting right a Proposal that we will all have to live with for many years going forward. Also, to reiterate, I believe that the current deadline schedule, by requiring comments to be filed in an
inordinately hasty and inadequately informed manner, risks far greater delay because it is more likely to let matters slip through that later prove to be substantial impediments to CCWG mission completion.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">With best regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Philip<u></u><u></u></span></p><span class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div><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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"><a href="tel:202-559-8597" value="+12025598597" target="_blank">202-559-8597</a>/Direct</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"><a href="tel:202-559-8750" value="+12025598750" target="_blank">202-559-8750</a>/Fax</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"><a href="tel:202-255-6172" value="+12022556172" target="_blank">202-255-6172</a>/cell</span></b><b><span style="color:navy"><u></u><u></u></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"><u></u> <u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"> <u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><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""> Thomas Rickert [mailto:<a href="mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de" target="_blank">rickert@anwaelte.de</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, November 11, 2015 8:17 AM<span class=""><br>
<b>To:</b> Phil Corwin<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Bernard Turcotte; Accountability Cross Community<br>
</span><span class=""><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary<u></u><u></u></span></span></p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Phil,<u></u><u></u></p></font></span><div><div class="h5">
<div><p class="MsoNormal">thank you for your message below. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">You specifically comment on the plans for the next GNSO Council meetings. Let me clarify that the suggestions for the GNSO Council’s handling of the CCWG recommendations are based on a best case scenario in which the Council is in a position
to consider or even approve the recommendations during its December meeting. If that is not possible, the time line presented in Dublin allows for adoption of the recommendations in January and the proposed time line would still be met. Hence, it is up to
the GNSO Council whether it wishes to take any action during its December meeting or not. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">Thomas<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div><p class="MsoNormal">Am 10.11.2015 um 15:22 schrieb Phil Corwin <<a href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com" target="_blank">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a>>:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div><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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><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><span> </span>draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th ---</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">November 30<sup>th</sup><span> </span>is only three weeks prior to the December 21<sup>st</sup><span> </span>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><span> </span>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>.)</b></span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><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<span> </span><u>prior to</u><span> </span>any
opportunity to review all the public comments. This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council makes final determinations only<span> </span><u>after</u><span> </span>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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><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. “</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><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.</span></u><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><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:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><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:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><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</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">System (DNS)</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in"><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">o<span> </span><b>ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the</b></span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in"><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">content that such services carry or provide.</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in"><p class="MsoNormal" style="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</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in"><p class="MsoNormal" style="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</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in"><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">names)<span> </span></span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">[Emphasis
added]</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><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>.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><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><span> </span>to December 21<sup>st</sup>.</span></u><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></span><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></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><span> </span>CCWG
Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3<sup>rd</sup><span> </span>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?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><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><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Virtualaw LLC</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">1155 F Street, NW</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Suite 1050</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Washington, DC 20004</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"><a href="tel:202-559-8597" value="+12025598597" target="_blank">202-559-8597</a>/Direct</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"><a href="tel:202-559-8750" value="+12025598750" target="_blank">202-559-8750</a>/Fax</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"><a href="tel:202-255-6172" value="+12022556172" target="_blank">202-255-6172</a>/cell</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"> </span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Twitter: @VlawDC</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><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><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> </span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</span></a><span> </span>[<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</span></a>]<span> </span><b>On
Behalf Of<span> </span></b>Bernard Turcotte<br>
<b>Sent:</b><span> </span>Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM<br>
<b>To:</b><span> </span>Accountability Cross Community<br>
<b>Subject:</b><span> </span>[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">All,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">Bernard Turcotte<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">Staff Support<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">for the co-chairs.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="1" width="100%" noshade="" style="color:#a0a0a0" align="center">
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">No virus found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG -<span> </span><a href="http://www.avg.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">www.avg.com</span></a><br>
Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15<br>
Internal Virus Database is out of date.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
</span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:purple">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif""><br>
</span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:purple">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</span></a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>