[bc-gnso] Timing of CCWG-Accountability

[Steve DelBianco]

On yesterday’s BC call, Phil and I mentioned the board’s comments on CCWG-Accountability proposal might affect timing of the transition.

Below is the transcript of how the board and CEO responded to my question.  Essentially, we (the community) control the timing.  So if we want to take more time, we make the call.


Steve DelBianco:         Thanks, David, Cherine, and Steve.  It's a question about your expectations on how these comments will affect the timing of the process.  As you're probably well aware, the Executive team at ICANN was quite clear with the CCWG leadership.  You had an urgency with respect to dates of getting it to the Board, getting it to NTIA.  And actually, we really took that on.  This started in Dublin, where we really took on a very aggressive schedule.

                                    And I'm wondering whether you have an expectation--or even discussed it at the Board level, an expectation that resolving some of the concerns that you've raised and adding the details which you'd asked for will probably cause us to slip on the deadlines we set, the aspirations we set while in Dublin.

And we are comfortable with that, and we'll do what we have to do to accommodate not only the Board but all the Chartering Organizations that are really the driving force behind CCWG.  But, I'm just interested to know if you discussed it and have an expectation about what this does to the timing.  Thank you.

Cherine Chalaby:         Steve, this is Cherine.  Thank you.  I will--I'll ask our Chairman, Steve Croker, to respond to that.  Steve?

Steve Crocker:            Thank you, Cherine, and thank you for the question, Steve.  Well, as you properly point out, we're--we've got two competing forces here.  One is to get it done quickly, and the other is--or in a timely fashion.  The other is to get it done right.  And that's kind of the classic squeeze.

                                    We have very purposefully and carefully limited the set of things that we are pushing hard on here.  We would hope that a relatively brief engagement on these matters would lead to a fairly rapid resolution.  And I don't think that it's helpful for us to concentrate too much on saying what happens in the extreme.

Should we--if we take an absolute position that timing is everything and therefore the substance of the proposal is compromised if we can't meet that timing, I'm not prepared to say that at all.  This is definitely not transition at any cost.

And on the other hand, we're all involved, I think quite constructively, in trying to move this process forward in a timely fashion and get on with it.  I think it serves no one's interest to have the delays--to have this process delayed and extended.  The risks to all parties and all purposes just increase at that point.  So, I'd rather focus on the content of what we're saying and then to find a way to move forward as rapidly as possible.

Cherine Chalaby:         Thank you, Steve.  At Steve's side, you would like to add a word or two on this issue, Fadi?

Fadi Chehade:             Yes.  Hi, Cherine.  Thank you.  Thank you, Steve, as well for your comment.  I just would like to answer Steve with a couple of points.

                                    This is a comment period.  And my assumption is that CCWG, I'm sure in its planning, assumed people will indeed submit comments.  And I think that's what the Board is doing in good faith.  And so did ALAC signal at the same time as the Board that they have been working diligently on their own comments.  And others have indicated, even before the Board submitted its comments, that they have comments coming.  So, this is, I think, expected.  And I'm presuming this is all part of the planning for the CCWG.

                                    Now, in terms of the--your comment that staff has been putting, I guess, pressure on the timeline, let me be very clear.  The timeline has been set by the community.  When the request came from NTIA to ask when did the community think it needs to end this process, it's in fact the community that has determined the timelines.

                                    All we are doing is working within the community's timeline to give people a sense of what needs to be done, whether it's from our side or from the NTIA side or from the implementation side in order to meet the community's own timeline.  That is our commitment to you.

                                    So if, in any of our communications of such timelines we left anybody with the sense that we are putting pressure, frankly that is simply a misunderstanding.  We are simply managing to the community's timeline to lapse the contract on September 30th, 2016.  And we've been simply sharing, accordingly, how the process will go and what are the steps in order to make sure, you know, just in normal project management mode within the direction of the community, everyone is clear on the timeline ahead.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20151218/45be4b56/attachment.html>