[CCWG-ACCT] Our timetable -- some personal observations

[Izumi Okutani]

Jordan,


Thank you for starting this discussions.

> ICANN agreeing to a slower timetable is one thing, but it does not change
> the fact that other actors do not wish to see more time taken. I cannot
> imagine numbers and protocols being happy about further time. (That is a
> deliberate understatement. I think they would be furious.)

:) I have not much to add.
As you have correctly observed Jordan, the timeline which do not affect the overall transition process is the priority for the numbers community.


To share the feedback in the ASO so far - 
(Note this is not an official endorsed position of the ASO. I will keep the CCWG updated if there are any other comments in the ASO and/or from the CRISP Team.)

It looks like not all of the suggestions from the Board would lead to substantial changes.
We can reflect non-substantial changes without affecting the timelines (i.e, without extension of the comment period/another public comment).

Given that keeping to a timeline that allows the NTIA contract to be terminated in September 2016 is important for us:

 - We support incorporating Board suggestions that are both reasonable which would not affect with the CCWG timeline.
 - The numbers would not be opposed to extending the CCWG timeline if and only if it will not compromise the NTIA timeline.
 - It would be helpful to know how strongly the ICANN Board feels about their suggestions. Perhaps different suggestions have different weight.

Based on this, I have a question to Bruce as ICANN Board liaison - 
Is there a suggestion(s) which the ICANN Board believes must be reflected, with taking into consideration of possibly delaying the current CCWG timelines if those changes are "fundamental"?


Izumi


On 2015/12/16 12:57, Jordan Carter wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> I would like to put on record my personal observations regarding the
> schedule of our work for the past few months. I do so in an effort to be as
> transparent as possible about my own role in the process, and to offer some
> thoughts on the consequences of further delays at this point.
> 
> First, I believe we have pulled together a credible Third Draft report
> which can be accepted as is by the SOs and ACs, and would pass the NTIA
> tests. So the fundamental quality of the work is not in question.
> 
> Second, what will be vital (given the short timeframe for this Third Draft
> and the limited public comment) is that there is fulsome and non-truncated
> public comment on the Bylaws and other changes that will give effect to
> these proposals.  That is where the "Every Word Has To Be Right" standard
> must be applied. For the current report, the intent must be clear - and
> that is the basis on which I have been happy to accept the truncated
> process for this phase.
> 
> Third, the drivers. To me the following have helped leave me able to deal
> with the compressed timeframe:
> 
> - pressure from senior ICANN staff and directors to "get it done" - and
> clear paintings, as recently as Dublin, of "horror" scenarios if the report
> isn't finished by mid-January. This has tended to be based on views about
> the U.S. political cycle.
> 
> - pressure from the numbering and protocols communities, who want this done
> and dusted and wish the transition had already been done.
> 
> - the desire generally to close the work out, given the slowly reducing
> levels of volunteer commitment evident over the past few months.
> 
> 
> So I have been able to live with that.
> 
> Fourth, I want to note my own ongoing frustration with the way the ICANN
> Board has involved itself in this process:
> - non involvement in the first parts of the process
> - interventions in the second draft proposal consultation and,
> problematically, around the Los Angeles meeting that made it impossible for
> us to present a Third Draft Report to the Dublin meeting.
> - a new intervention now with further substantive changes proposed, some of
> which are fundamental to the Third Draft (esp. the human rights, voting
> thresholds, inspection rights and IANA budget) that cannot be incorporated
> without further delays to the process.
> - the astonishing change in tone about the timetable - from "THIS MUST BE
> DONE" to "we should take the time to get this right!".
> 
> It seems to me the Board's conflict of interest in this process, which is
> inherent (the body being held to account is inserting itself into decisions
> about how that should happen), has been managed in a fashion that has made
> our work harder, that has called into question the ability to complete a
> workable proposal, and has caused unnecessary stress and friction both
> within the CCWG and with the other operational communities.
> 
> That said: we are where we are.
> 
> So for the next few weeks I offer this observation.
> 
> If the substantive changes proposed by the Board on the items I noted above
> are agreed to by the CCWG, it will require:
> 
> - diligent work to assure the quality of the proposals, including legal
> review
> - a re-presentation of the final proposal, along with explanation of why
> the changes have been made
> - a re-consideration of the final proposal by the chartering SOs and ACs.
> 
> This will all take time, and in my view at least a month of time if not
> more.  That is even if the outcome is not to agree with the Board's
> changes. (Personally I think a few of them are helpful, and that they
> should be judged on the merits - if we agree to take the time to do so.)
> 
> ICANN agreeing to a slower timetable is one thing, but it does not change
> the fact that other actors do not wish to see more time taken. I cannot
> imagine numbers and protocols being happy about further time. (That is a
> deliberate understatement. I think they would be furious.)
> 
> 
> So in the end, the critical decision we face is whether to deal with
> substantive comment in a way that could lead to key things being changed in
> a manner that:
> 
> - accepts fundamental changes and the change to the schedule involved
> - rejects fundamental changes, and takes the risk of the Board's comment it
> may oppose those changes coming true
> 
> 
> As usual, we are again in an invidious situation through no fault of our
> (the CCWG's) own. It is no surprise volunteer numbers are down.
> 
> I would be interested in the views of other participants on the following:
> 
> - do you think substantive changes such as those of the Board would require
> delays if adopted following the close of public comments?
> 
> - do you feel comfortable with delay if required?
> 
> 
> best,
> Jordan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>