I agree ... I wonder if NTIA does ... **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 -----Original Message----- From: McAuley, David [mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 5:27 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Timelines ... As you note Paul, the timeline is becoming very tight, with much remaining to do. In my personal opinion, one possible approach to the preliminary notice would be to give it now or reasonably soon, explaining it as a nothing more than an administratively prudent step in light of the complexities of the work currently underway and recognizing that the preliminary notice itself does not constitute an extension. The second notice, then, could be given as late as Sept. 29th or 30th if needed (at least as it seems to me by the word "within" 15 days). This might allow the community to press on with all this work without the notice process itself becoming a distraction. David McAuley -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:03 PM To: 'Adam Peake'; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Timelines ... Colleagues Since "timelines" are to be discussed next week in Singapore (and since I will not be there) I wanted to raise a question/issue that has been troubling me for several weeks and with which I've been struggling in terms of reconciling a suitable answer. My question begins with a single assumption -- that the CCWG recommends to the Board accountability changes, at least one of which requires a change in the Bylaws of ICANN. That is by no means certain, of course, given our ongoing discussions but I think it is fair to characterize those discussions as making such a recommendation reasonably likely. Based on earlier conversations within the CCWG and input from Bruce Tonkin, here is what I understand the Bylaw amendment process to entail: (1) Board of Directors acceptance of the recommendation from the working group; (2) drafting of the specific wording of the bylaw amendment and corresponding changes to related provisions by the ICANN General Counsel's office; (3) posting of the proposed language for public review and comment, (in the past this seems typically to have been for 21 to 45 days); and, finally, (4) a formal vote to adopt the bylaw amendments, which requires a two-thirds majority of the Board. One final preliminary factual point. Pursuant to the terms of the NTIA IANA Functions Contract with ICANN: "The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within 15 calendar days before the expiration of the contract; provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least 30 calendar days before the contract expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension." In other words, if the NTIA were to choose to extend the contract it must provide preliminary notice to ICANN no later than August 31, 2015, and final notice of that decision no later than September 15, 2015. I am therefore uncertain how our timeline will fit with these requirements. I assume that in addition to the steps identified above there were need to be some interaction between the Board and NTIA by which NTIA would announces its conclusion that the proposed accountability measures (including the hypothetical Bylaw change) would satisfy the conditions that it has set for the transition. I also assume that the Board would simultaneously begin the public consultation process for the Bylaw amendment but would not vote to formally adopt the amendment until after that process concludes and the NTIA review has concluded -- no point in adopting a Bylaw that NTIA deems inadequate or unnecessary. And, finally, if a Bylaw amendment is necessary I assume that the NTIA would not renew the contract in the absence of a Bylaw amendment. So this is the timeline I see right now: June 30 -- CCWG transmits recommendations for accountability July 31 -- Final deadline for submitting recommendations to Board by ICG August 1 -- Board submits proposals to NTIA and Community -- concurrent August 21 -- Board closes public Comment period/NTIA approves August 22 -- Board votes "yes" As you can see, this is remarkably tight and assumes immediate concurrence in all recommendations by the Board (which may or may not be a reasonable assumption) as well as the absence of pushback either from the NTIA or the broader community -- hence my concern with timelines. This also assumes that in the end we agree that a commitment to implement a Bylaw change is sufficient for accountability purposes -- as opposed to the view of some (including me) that actual implementation is preferable. It appears to me inevitable that NTIA will have to file a protective notice of extension on August 31. And it seems almost equally certain that the NTIA will have to renew the contract. Is there a way to accelerate the timeline? I assume not. But I thought I would ask. If there isn't then what is a realistic extension timeline? 6 months? Regards Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:adam.peake@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 7:34 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Draft agenda CCWG meeting with the Board Proposed draft agenda for CCWG meeting with the Board. 11 am to 12 noon. Sunday Feb 8 03:00 - 04:00 UTC (1) A discussion about timelines, particularly around and leading up to ICANN 53 Buenos Aires (2) To clarify how the Board will handle CCWG's proposal, and any anticipated reasons why a proposal/part of a proposal might be refused? The anticipated process following any such refusal. (3) CCWG to provide an update of the two work avenues developed from the face-to-face discussions in Frankfurt, that is: * mechanisms that enable community empowerment over Board decisions with limited, strictly enumerated, last resort powers * mechanisms to enhance review and redress processes The meeting is not yet on the ICANN 52 Schedule, but the CCWG wiki is update https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings Includes all meetings of the CCWG during the week. Thank you, Adam _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community