[CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary

Tue Nov 10 14:36:12 UTC 2015

I have said before, this ambitious timeline is unrealistic.

To the extent of invalidating the process.

And for the record, I renew my objections against it.

el

On 2015-11-10 16:22, Phil Corwin wrote:
> While others address the substance of this first full draft of the
> executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns
> about the timeline for public comments – including statements
> from and consideration by the Chartering Organizations.
> 
>  
> 
> Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there
> had been any community discussion to extend the comment period,
> and this is the reply I made, with special emphasis on my role as
> a member of the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin
> consideration of draft GNSO comments regarding the 3^rd draft CCWG
> Proposal on December 5th ---
> 
>  
> 
> “I don’t know of any discussion yet to extend the comment
> period, but wouldn’t be all that surprised if there is one,
> given that this designator model is a major revision and deviation
> from the prior member model.
> 
>  
> 
> Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline,
> especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent
> the BC. While the summary report (first draft of which I just
> forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15^th ,
> the full and detailed draft proposal won’t be out until two
> weeks later, on November 30^th .  I’ve been through enough
> legislative processes to know that staff-drafted summaries can
> never be relied upon to fully and accurately convey the language
> and potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in the underlying
> text, and that there is no substitute for its line-by-line
> dissection.
> 
>  
> 
> November 30^th is only three weeks prior to the December 21^st
> deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form
> and submit a fully informed comment, especially for trade
> associations and other groups which must consider multiple inputs.
> *Even more worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the
> Council is supposed to “Share draft GNSO comment on 3^rd draft
> CCWG Proposal” on December 5^th , just five days after the full
> text is released.  As I am supposed to represent your consensus
> views, it means the BC has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss
> the full text, and that Councilors must then attempt in the short
> remaining time to reconcile the separate views of those they
> represent into a single consensus draft GNSO comment.  (I do note
> that the Council has almost two additional weeks to massage its
> comment, as the target for submission is December 18^th .)*
> 
> * *
> 
> This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its
> consensus views _prior to_ any opportunity to review all the
> public comments.  This is very different from the PDP process in
> which the Council makes final determinations only _after_ it
> reviews all public comments.  It also puts a large degree of
> pressure on those constituencies that Councilors represent to
> instruct us on their views long before the comment period has
> concluded.
> 
>  
> 
> My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists
> for a reason.  I’m not for undue delay, but I am for adequate
> scrutiny, and I am concerned that this timeline does not provide
> sufficient time for that.  “
> 
>  
> 
> _Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning’s CCWG
> call, just concluded.  _
> 
>  
> 
> Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to
> limit ICANN’s ability to “regulate” use of the Internet.  On
> page 30 of the Summary memo it says this:
> 
>                 The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s
> Mission and Core Values to:
> 
> • Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities
> related to the Domain Name
> 
> System (DNS)
> 
> o *ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's
> unique identifiers, or the*
> 
> *content that such services carry or provide.*
> 
> *o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with
> contracted parties*
> 
> *(entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to
> top level domain*
> 
> *names) *[Emphasis added]
> 
>  
> 
> But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous
> discussion there is still no agreement on what that language
> should be, or even the scope of the limitation it is trying to
> describe (in fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that
> second point).  So on that key subject no one can draft an
> intelligent and informed comment based upon the high level summary
> document to be released on 11/15, and must await the full text
> promised for 11/30 – yet Councilors are supposed to survey those
> they represent and begin consideration of a draft GNSO comment by
> December 5^th .
> 
>  
> 
> _Let’s be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully
> informed public comments can be developed and submitted is
> presently only three weeks, from November 30^th to December 21^st
> ._For the Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to
> consider the approval of the CCWG-Accountability 3^rd CCWG
> Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3^rd draft CCWG
> Proposal on December 17^th , with the Council Statement being
> submitted one day later on December 18^th .  Then Councillors are
> supposed to consider final documents and motions as early as two
> weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4^th
> ), if the Proposal has changed in any way from the third draft put
> out for comment -- notwithstanding the fact that both the
> Christmas and New Year holidays occur within that period.  And,
> BTW, is it realistic to think that the CCWG will be able to review
> all the comments and draft responsive consensus amendments in the
> middle of those two weeks?
> 
>  
> 
> So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded
> under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that
> differs quite substantially from the prior member model, prepare
> thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive
> adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments.
> 
>  
> 
> I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of
> the Accountability process as soon as possible.  But I also have
> strong concerns that we are not providing sufficient time for
> review of a proposed structure that the community will have to
> live within for years, and likely decades.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
> 
> *Virtualaw LLC*
> 
> *1155 F Street, NW*
> 
> *Suite 1050*
> 
> *Washington, DC 20004*
> 
> *202-559-8597/Direct*
> 
> *202-559-8750/Fax*
> 
> *202-255-6172/cell***
> 
> * *
> 
> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
> 
>  
> 
> */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Bernard Turcotte
> *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM
> *To:* Accountability Cross Community
> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary
> 
>  
> 
> All,
> 
>  
> 
> Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which
> will be discussed on the call tomorrow.
> 
>  
> 
> Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working
> almost around the clock.
> 
>  
> 
> Bernard Turcotte
> 
> Staff Support
> 
>  
> 
> for the co-chairs.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 

-- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/