Hello, As a CCWG participant who does not have the resources to attend F2F meetings in person, I fully endorse Paul's three suggestions. We are at a critical stage in the CCWG's timeline - to introduce a F2F before Dublin without sufficient preparation on the Board's part or due consideration of public comments on the current proposal would be in contravention of the multi stakeholder process. F2F meetings advance the CCWG's agenda significantly. Those who have support to participate are therefore at an advantage and better positioned to articulate their views/ concerns. Of particular concern is the location of this meeting: the time difference makes it impossible for many in the Eastern hemisphere to participate remotely. I would therefore request the CCWG co-chairs and the Board to convene this meeting in Dublin or (subsequently) at an appropriate and accessible location after due preparation. Best, Arun Sent from my iPhone -- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com Ph:+91-9871943272
On 07-Sep-2015, at 10:55 pm, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Colleagues
I want to pick up on something that Phil just mentioned (more as an aside) and make it an affirmative point of discussion within the list – whether or not we should have a F2F meeting with the Board in Los Angeles.
By way of background, I think the general sense is that the dialogue with the Board was not a success (in the sense that it was a positive step toward resolution and a successful transition). While I am sure that some on this list disagree (most notably the Board members) I have a clear sense from reading the transcript, the chat log and the messages on this list (including Malcolm’s excellent discussion of the issue which highlights the ambiguity in the Board’s statements) that most of us see the meeting as, at best, a wash and at worst the harbinger of bad results.
From my personal vantage point, I think the reasons for that is clear – lack of preparation and definition. There was no pre-meeting exchange of written views from the Board to narrow the issues; there was no agreement on a concrete set of discussion points; and quite clearly the Board has not yet coalesced around a uniform viewpoint. On many occasions, the Board was left saying “we don’t know for sure but we have many questions” and on the few points that they were firm on (e.g. the opposition to the Single Member model) the Board’s reasons were not well-articulated and, to some degree, a surprise to the community.
That kind of poor preparation of significant meetings is a formula for failure – and it is precisely why the dialog did not go as well as anyone would have liked.
If we rush to the F2F in Los Angeles (in 2 weeks time! Or maybe 3) without better preparation, that meeting, too will be unsatisfactory. Here, in my view, is what needs to happen:
1) The Board needs to adopt a formal written response to the CCWG proposal – not a set of bullet points and not a summary of legal analysis by an outside lawyer with which it may not completely agree, but a full response with both its objections to the CCWG model; its reasons for the objections; its alternate proposal; and its justification for the same. 2) The CCWG needs to take those comments and conduct a thorough analysis of them; responding as appropriate. Again, not just a quick lawyers analysis (which was helpful but does not answer the fundamental questions) but rather a full-scale justification for accepting/rejecting/modifying the Board’s views. And this response needs to take into account, as well, the responses of others in the community (all of which will not be compiled until the end of this week). 3) Only when the disagreements remaining between the Board and the CCWG are narrowed; well-defined; and clearly articulated would it be worth having a F2F meeting at which views can be expressed; compromises (perhaps) reached; and agreements to disagree finalized.
That process CANNOT happen on the time line of a late September meeting with the Board. I have no doubt that such a meeting will fail for being ill-prepared if we attempt it. It is very likely that such a meeting COULD happen in Dublin in the days immediately before the ICANN meeting, but no sooner. I realize that this likely means that no final proposal will be available to the community in Dublin – but given the Board’s fundamental objections that is now beyond possibility. If the Board were to recede and agree that the CCWG proposal is the fundamental core of what will go to the NTIA, then the timing can be restored – but if it insists on discussing its proposal (which, I am sorry Wolfgang, is absolutely NOT basic agreement – no matter how hard you wish it to be) in detail and attempting to modify the CCWG proposal then the timeline must shift.
I am, of course, only a participant, not a member. So I have no “vote” in this matter. But it would be my firm recommendation that the Co-Chairs respectfully decline the Board’s invitation to Los Angeles and schedule a meeting with the Board in due course once the Board actually has a formal position to put forward.
Cheers Paul
Paul Rosenzweig Red Branch Consulting, PLLC 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 www.redbranchconsulting.com www.paulrosenzweigesq.com Link to my PGP Key
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community