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

[Jonathan Robinson]

I too support it and it is now included in the draft letter to be sent to the CCWG which I shall post to this group shortly.

 

I have suggested one change as follows:

 

From

 

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.”

To

 

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 reasonably required.”

 

 

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com] 
Sent: 16 December 2015 03:51
To: Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com>
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed language to deal with very tight time restrictions in CCWG escalation processes

 

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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org> >
Date: Tuesday 15 December 2015 at 8:38 p.m.
To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com> >
Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> " <cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20151216/75ff2852/attachment.html>