I think it would be most helpful if the CCWG co-chairs and the CWG co-chairs got together and could try to come to some kind of agreement about what a reasonable timetable would be, given how close we both REALLY are to getting done.  Instead of the work quality suffering because we are so rushed and have no time to think things through, we could work towards a timeline that truly is bottom-up and organically created, rather than this top-down imaginary "deadline" that is causing us to put out an ill-considered proposal.

I have not heard a single argument for why we shouldn't take the time, 3-6 months perhaps, to get this right.  The stakes are too high to cram it all in at the last minute and think we will make terrible mistakes if we insist on doing it this way.

Best,
Robin


On Apr 14, 2015, at 4:29 AM, Edward Morris wrote:

I stand in complete agreement with Robin on this matter and, in fact, this morning have expressed my concern regarding timing to staff of a minority member of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. This process seems be to driven not by CCWG members but rather by external considerations.We are in the process of rebuilding the entire scheme of a multinational private corporation and, as non lawyers, are attempting to do so relying upon legal advice that lags rather than leads the conversation. IMHO retaining independent counsel, not so called expert advisors whom we have barely used, should have been our first priority when setting up this group. It didn't happen and today we are paying the price.

I do not believe there is consensus on this list for this current work plan. In a bottom up model that should mean something but so far seems not to. When people like Roelof and Robin are saying the current work rate is not acceptable they should not be ignored. Both are key players in this effort whose opinions carry weight, at least with me. Through their hard work they have earned the right to be listened to perhaps more than many, yet their comments seem to be brushed off rather than respected, considered and acted upon.

We have one chance to get this right. The first attempt to launch ICANN  in the '90's likewise was done in a rushed manner and produced results so chaotic, in the opinion of some,  the governing structure had to have a complete re-do. Given today's high salience of IG issues I suspect if we get this wrong there will be no chance for a re-do. The root will split and it will be our fault. 

The Heritage Foundation, a proud member of my stakeholder group, has suggested that the NTIA needs to extend the IANA contract until September 2017 ( http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/02/time-is-running-out-the-us-must-be-prepared-to-renew-the-icann-contract ) so that we have time to do our work properly. I don't think we need that long but we do need substantially more time than we are currently being  given to get this job done right in a bottom up, participatory manner where due consideration is given to the intricacies and widespread implications of the changes we are about to propose. 

Ed







 

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I must join in the chorus of voices saying that this compressed timeline is not going to produce a quality proposal.  Sure, we can slap something together, which only a small handful have thought about, but we won't get anywhere close to doing our best work, or even a good proposal at this pace.

We just don't have the time to think through all of the issues that must be thought through and to have answers to the questions that are foundational to the rest of our work.  The confusion about what is actually being proposed and then advice that doesn't address what is under consideration is but one example of how the quality of our work is suffering by the frenetic pace.

Either this group is in charge of its own processes, or it isn't.  It is beginning to look like the group is not in control, as imaginary imposed "deadlines" are the main driving consideration for us now.  Not quality.  This is a grave mistake.  We simply must take the time to think all of this through and engage with the community on these crucial matters.  That is the only way to get a quality result.  The rush job to meet imaginary deadlines is creating greater problems every day and will only exacerbate as we go forward.

I remain committed to participating in a dozen or so calls a week, but I'm under no illusion that this last-minute cram job will be any more effective at building global governance institutions than it is to college freshman learning on the night before their final exam.

Best,
Robin

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community