Given that communication and readability is one of our major challenges I agree strongly with Malcolm that a rushed drafting process is not in our best interests. Further to that point, I think we need to rethink how we communicate much of what we are trying to communicate, in terms of format, providing readable overviews as opposed to immediately plunging into mechanics, etc., etc. Greg On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 06/10/2015 13:58, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The co-chairs had tasked staff to highlight what would be a plausible timeline scenario after our group agrees on a proposed way forward in Dublin. We investigated a scenario where we would not need a public comment, as a well as a scenario where an extra pûblic comment would be needed.
The attached slides present an initial draft which we submit for comments from the group.
In summary, in the absence of an extra PC period, we could deliver the final report on Nov 20 to the chartering organisations at the earliest. If we need an extra public comment, delivery would be around end of january - beginning of february 2016.
Seven days to redraft the report, and seven days to review it.
That means only seven days in Working Parties really thrashing the detailed wording. Whoever has their hand on the pen will likely need at least half that time to come up with their first draft (perhaps more, depending on their personal schedule). So we're really only talking about two or three days for detailed discussion of alternative phrasing for specific clauses.
Is that really enough?
Maybe enough to get something on paper. But hardly enough time to polish the language, to make it legible and accessible, and to make sure our explanations properly consider what the uninitiated reader might wonder. We'd also be taking big risks with unforeseen omissions and errata (as with our previous drafts).
I think it's this kind of time pressure that has gotten us much of the criticism we've had already. I know this is not welcome advice, but Aesop's fable of the hare and tortoise springs to mind.
Or how does Public Comment Period 4 grab you?
I propose that we give an extra two weeks for WPs to work on the text.
So replace this section "3-10 November: Drafting of report language 10 November: Report sections sent to CCWG for review & CCWG call for rapporteurs to walk through edits"
with
"3-10 November: Drafting of report language 10 November: Deadline for delivery of draft language to WPs by rapporteurs 10-24 November: Review of draft language by WPs 24 November: Report sections sent to CCWG for review & CCWG call for rapporteurs to walk through edits"
with the lengths of the rest unchanged, resulting in a close of public comments on 14th Jan.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community