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

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hi Chuck,

I think this looks good. You may want to indicate specifically which
escalation phases is observed to either have too short or too high time
period in the current draft.

While it's fine to ask the 7days question, I  expect that chartering
organisation would indeed flag it if they find it to be an issue. I guess
one question that may be good to include is to ask clarification on what
happens in a situation where one/some SO/AC are unable to meet the deadline
(irrespective of whether the deadline is increased or not)

Regards
On Dec 15, 2015 21:32, "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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151216/21317f4c/attachment.html>