[Ssr2-review] CCT Review, FYI

Thu Mar 14 11:07:47 UTC 2019

________________________________
From: Denise Michel <denisemichel at fb.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 4:33 PM
To: Margie Milam; Frederick Felman; russp at seedip.com
Subject: Fwd: My meeting with Cherine

FYI

________________________________
From: Jonathan Zuck <jzuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 12:16 PM
To: Russ Housley; pkane at verisign.com; Denise Michel; susankpolicy at gmail.com; langdonorr at gmail.com; sdelbiancoATnetchoice.org
Subject: Re: My meeting with Cherine

Folks,
I received the attached latter from Cherine and the board this morning and responded. Thankfully, the board has moved past the idea that the only mistake was one of miscommunication. In my discussions with the board, they recognized they have both a short and long term problem to manage the influx of recommendations. Accordingly, they intend to schedule a conference call (with all of us) in the very near term with the possibility of an in person meeting in May if one is deemed necessary. This will be followed up with community exercise to determine the best path forward into the future. Let’s consider if we would benefit from an organizing call prior to further interaction with the board.

‘Jonathan

From: Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 11:21 AM
To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>, Pat Kane <pkane at verisign.com>, Denise Michel <denisemichel at fb.com>, "susankpolicy at gmail.com" <susankpolicy at gmail.com>, "langdonorr at gmail.com" <langdonorr at gmail.com>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
Subject: Re: My meeting with Cherine

Thanks for including me.

I keep hearing that it was a communication failure.  If that is the case, why is it so hard to get a corrected message?

Also, look at the Bylaws that say what the Board is required to do with recommendations from "SPECIFIC REVIEWS":

       (C) Each final report of a review team shall be published for
   public comment in advance of the Board's consideration. Within six
   months of receipt of a final report, the Board shall consider such
   final report and the public comments on the final report, and
   determine whether to approve the recommendations in the final report.
   If the Board does not approve any or all of the recommendations, the
   written rationale supporting the Board's decision shall include an
   explanation for the decision on each recommendation that was not
   approved. The Board shall promptly direct implementation of the
   recommendations that were approved.

The six month deadline seems to be the thing that drove the timing of the resolution.

Since the Board did not "promptly direct implementation" of any of the recommendations, I can only interpret this resolution as non-approval for all of them.

Russ

On Mar 12, 2019, at 9:31 PM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote:

Adding Russ to our cabal

Jonathan Zuck
Executive Director
Innovators Network Foundation
Www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.innovatorsnetwork.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=MWVuq3jZIw5gwhGdDf-HWNL4CEWIsdUnt9gOgplCArM&m=WVWPBX7Q8R97lVqvZXzBIbtFSL_eEWN1LJp2oBstnko&s=vKZWQUn-LvZeUxCz5SV1UTadvMhpCrxA8nylQKuvFUA&e=>

From: pkane at verisign.com<mailto:pkane at verisign.com>
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎March‎ ‎13‎, ‎2019 ‎12‎:‎59‎ ‎AM
To: Jonathan Zuck<mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>, Denise Michel<mailto:denisemichel at fb.com>, susankpolicy at gmail.com<mailto:susankpolicy at gmail.com>, langdonorr at gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>
Cc: Steve DelBianco<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>

I spoke with Russ Housley briefly this afternoon and we are going to talk tomorrow (Wednesday) as he has a team of deflated reviewers and he does not know what to do next.  We are going to try and learn from Monday’s interaction but it sounds as though there may be some benefit in catching up with you as well based upon your interaction with Cherine.

I am concerned about the comment below about making funds available to staff for new gTLD work.  If money is not available to work on CCTRT recommendations yet money is freed up for a WG that has yet to get to consensus on many items it appears that the money is being used to make more money for ICANN by taking applications for new gTLDs as soon as possible.  Especially, given that every forum inKobe includes commentary about not having any money to do the work of the community.

Pat

Patrick Kane
Senior Vice President
Verisign Naming and Directory Services
PKane at Verisign.com<mailto:PKane at Verisign.com>

t: 703.948.3349
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA  20190

Verisign.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.verisigninc.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=MWVuq3jZIw5gwhGdDf-HWNL4CEWIsdUnt9gOgplCArM&m=WVWPBX7Q8R97lVqvZXzBIbtFSL_eEWN1LJp2oBstnko&s=UismOyXFWtsfUtGswm-Y1PQaH6uw4WINkH8xCpiUt-8&e=>  The Manifesto of Done – Laugh at perfection.  It’s boring and keeps you from being done.

Error! Filename not specified.

From: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 11:48 AM
To: Denise Michel <denisemichel at fb.com<mailto:denisemichel at fb.com>>; Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy at gmail.com<mailto:susankpolicy at gmail.com>>; Kane, Pat <pkane at verisign.com<mailto:pkane at verisign.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>>
Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] My meeting with Cherine

I don’t know whom else to include on this email but I’ll start with you folks. This evening I spent an hour with Cherine discussing this debacle that has so taken the board by surprise. As you have no doubt realized from the board’s, now semi-annual, apology tour, they did not intend for the resolution to be interpreted the way it was.  I was frank and suggested the resolution read like a late homework assignment given it’s generalized justifications, logic errors, misinterpretations all of which were separate from their atrocious communications strategy. He said he realized later that I had been trying to help them at the public forum and he hadn’t realized and had dug a deeper hole. As I pointed out a few illustrative examples of problems with their resolution, he conceded that most of the board had not read the recommendations but had instead relied on the board caucus committee that has been assigned to the project. They had assured the board that they knew just what to do by coming up with the 3 categories and he believed that eventually all of the recommendations would be accepted. He believed the board had committed to developing a data framework, even though that was not reflected in the resolution itself. It went on like that and the more we talked the more dismayed he became. He said there was an upcoming resolution to approve funds for ICANN staff to begin preparing for a new round and wondered if perhaps that might not go over well either. I suggested it might not because there was already a feeling of undo influence on the part of staff and that giving them a far less open ended set of directions could go a long way to mitigate the damage. But that’s all a separate but related issue. I mentioned the seemingly relentless momentum of the subsequent procedures WG and the boards apparent acquiescence. He said he didn’t think it was the board’s place to try and influence the PDP and I said that given the execution of the 2012 round, inserting some public interest requirements into the process was WELL within the board’s remit.

Denise, I raised the issue of meeting sooner, perhaps by phone, given the fact there are several “in process” review teams that are currently wondering what they should be doing. He’s agreed to attempt something sooner, most likely at the board workshop in Istanbul in May. He asked, how many people would it be and I said it would likely be between 5 and 10 but that ideally it would be the leadership of any group with pending recommendations.

He really believes that this was just a failure to communicate but I said that while that was true, it also signified a breakdown in process that raises alarm bells in the community. I suggested that cleaning up their communication was not going to be sufficient to resolve this issue satisfactorily amongst the currently chartered review teams who have been demotivated by the board’s luke warm reception of the CCT recommendations.

I hope this is helpful and I’ll keep you informed about any further communications.
Jonathan

Jonathan Zuck |  Executive Director  |  Innovators Network
jzuck at innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:jzuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck |
<image001.png>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/attachments/20190314/007ef1d5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2019-03-14 Cherine Chalaby to CCT Review Team.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 293204 bytes
Desc: 2019-03-14 Cherine Chalaby to CCT Review Team.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/attachments/20190314/007ef1d5/2019-03-14CherineChalabytoCCTReviewTeam.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CCDTRT2Board3-14-19.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 29322 bytes
Desc: CCDTRT2Board3-14-19.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/attachments/20190314/007ef1d5/CCDTRT2Board3-14-19.pdf>