+1. Larry Strickling has stated that the community has only one chance to get this right. In addition, not only is September 30th not a deadline
but NTIA has acknowledged that it is subject to the appropriations rider enacted in December which prohibits the transition taking place by September 30th.
A two part comment period (initial comment followed by reply) is now standard for much less important issues addressed by the ICANN community, so that certainly
should be the minimum expected for a permanent new accountability framework. A full comment period will also facilitate the detailed fine-tuning that will improve the overall proposal, build community support, and thereby substantially reduce the likelihood
of any future actions by Congress to forestall the transition.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 12:27 PM
To: Kavouss Arasteh
Cc: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comments
I agree with Kavouss. I think it would be terribly irresponsible of us to make the kind of reforms we need for WS1 with only one single 20-day comment period. There are significant impacts to these measures that must be explored by the
community before we could possibly undertake them. We are redesigning a global governance institution and need to take the time to do it right, which includes community consultation and an iterative process of reaching recommendations. This cannot be achieved
without a reply or 2nd comment period to take the public comments on board. Nor can it be done before we have independent legal advice that the community can weigh and consider. These are complex issues with significant implications for many stakeholders
- more significant than anything ICANN has done in a decade.
Larry Strickling has said several times that 30 Sept is not a deadline and that the IANA contract would be extended while the community takes the necessary time to get the important issues right.
Thanks,
Robin
On Mar 22, 2015, at 9:13 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Jordan,
Dear Co Chairs
Dear All,
I think one public comment is not sufficient , Why for such an important issue only one period is forseen unless we are of the strong view that one dialogue between CCWG and the entire community is enough,in particular, for WS2 as the scope
, nature and extent of that stream is too complex .
We need to revisit this item again.
Regards
Kavouss
2015-03-22 16:57 GMT+01:00 Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>:
It's important to be clear that the current schedule proposes:
ONE public comment period for WorkStream 1 matters (pre-transition)
ONE public comment period for WorkStream 2 matters (post-transition)
It remains to be seen whether it is possible to construct our pre-transition proposal based on one comment period - hopefully this will be clear by Tuesday afternoon.
bests
Jordan
On 22 March 2015 at 17:51, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Kavouss,
According to the timeline, there seem to be two 40 days public comments planned for the ccwg.
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 22 Mar 2015 13:27, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: