[CWG-Stewardship] Proposed language to deal with very tight time restrictions in CCWG escalation processes

[Matthew Shears]

Chuck

I think this is a critical issue for the CWG to highlight.

Thanks!

On Tuesday, 15 December 2015, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> 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 (Community Empowerment Mechanism) in the CWG Comment Letter:
>
>
>
> “The CCWG third draft proposal requires that the community “follow the
> engagement and escalation processes described in the proposal before
> exercising any of the community powers.”  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.
>
>
>
> “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.”
>
>
>
> Comments, criticism and edits are very welcome.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151215/ae2f3ab8/attachment.html>