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

[Greg Shatan]

I support Chuck's statement.

Greg

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Mary Uduma via CWG-Stewardship <
cwg-stewardship at icann.org> wrote:

> ++1
> Mary Uduma
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
> *From: *James Gannon
> *Sent: *Tuesday, 15 December 2015 22:45
> *To: *Matthew Shears; Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc: *cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject: *Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed language to deal with very
> tight time restrictions in CCWG escalation processes
>
> +1
>
> James
>
> From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Matthew Shears <
> mshears at cdt.org>
> Date: Tuesday 15 December 2015 at 8:38 p.m.
> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
> Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed language to deal with very tight
> time restrictions in CCWG escalation processes
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151215/4d5de7e1/attachment-0001.html>