<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=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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="color:#1F497D">I think your language pretty much nails it, Chuck. People with more time on their hands than I have might find things to improve, but I’d be happy to let it through as is.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">--MM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Gomes, Chuck<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 15, 2015 3:31 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> cwg-stewardship@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed language to deal with very tight time restrictions in CCWG escalation processes<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In response to Jonathan’s request of me to draft some possible language to add to the CWG Comment Letter regarding the CCWG Accountability third draft proposal, here is propose as an addition to the Conclusion for Requirement 1 (<span style="color:black">Community
Empowerment Mechanism</span>) in the CWG Comment Letter:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“The CCWG third draft proposal requires that the community “<span style="color:black">follow the engagement and escalation processes described in the proposal before exercising any of the community powers.</span>” This is a reasonable
requirement but it creates a dependency on the usability of the engagement and escalation processes. If the community and in particular the SOs and ACs are unable to reasonably meet the requirements of those processes, then the community powers will lose
their value. The very specific time requirements for various SO and AC actions in the escalation processes may be impossible or at best very difficult to meet; if more than one SO/AC cannot act within the tight time limits, the process will be halted.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“The CWG recognizes that the escalation processes need to happen in a very timely manner but they must also allow sufficient time to accommodate the diverse and complex makeup of SOs and ACs. A key question that should be asked of SOs
and ACs is this: what is the minimum time they need to respond to a critical issue that is also very time sensitive? To be more specific, can they respond in 7 days without compromising their bottom-up, multistakeholder model? If they cannot, then the CCWG
recommended empowerment mechanisms do not meet the CWG requirements. This should not be a hard problem to solve. Time restrictions that are deemed to be too short could be lengthened a little and/or the restrictions could be defined in a more flexible manner
to allow for brief extensions when needed.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Comments, criticism and edits are very welcome.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chuck<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>