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

[Gomes, Chuck]

Seun,

Please see my responses below.

Chuck

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 7:47 PM
To: 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


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.

[Chuck Gomes] I think it should be up to the SOs and ACs to identify which ones are too short, not me or even the CWG, but I used the 7-day example because I personally think that is likely too short in most if not all cases where it applies.  To use an example from the GNSO: it is very difficult if not impossible to get responses from even a simple majority of RySG members in 7 days; it is more difficult with major issues where more deliberation and discussion is needed; the RySG is just one SG out of four in the GNSO; the GNSO Council of course needs to obtain input from all four of its SGs, some of which have multiple constituencies.

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.

[Chuck Gomes] I cannot speak for the GNSO, but I am pretty sure that this will be raised by multiple SGs or constituencies in the GNSO.

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)

[Chuck Gomes] My understanding from my reading of the CCWG recommended escalation procedures is that the 7 days is a required response time so if it is missed by more than one SO or AC, the process stops.  If this is not the case, then maybe that needs to be clarified.

Regards
On Dec 15, 2015 21:32, "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/20151216/242d1f51/attachment.html>