<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)">
<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;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.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">It seems likely that the CCWG will be looking at a best case timeline just like us.<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">Chuck<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""> cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:15 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> cwg-stewardship@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Timelines ...<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I thought the email below was worth posting to the CWG-IANA list, given its relevance to our timelines as well.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Greg<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: <b>Paul Rosenzweig</b> <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>><br>
Date: Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:02 PM<br>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Timelines ...<br>
To: Adam Peake <<a href="mailto:adam.peake@icann.org">adam.peake@icann.org</a>>, <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
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">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><br>
M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><br>
Skype: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739">+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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>