Timeline scenarios - initial draft for comments
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. Best regards, Mathieu PS: a PDF version will be circulated shortly
Hello Mathieu, Thanks for the shared timeline. Owning to the ongoing discussion, I can say it seem realistic (if not ambitious). That said, I observed none of the scenarios plans approval of catering organizations with the normal ICANN face 2 face meetings in mind. Does it mean that its been confirmed from all the catering organizations that they could provide their approval(or otherwise) remotely? I know ALAC may be able to pull that off, but I doubt same will be possible for GAC and ccNSO. That said, looking at the ICG timeline[1], it seem the CCWG report will be getting to NTIA much later than the ICG combined proposal(assuming ICG timeline is still followed as indicated). Nevertheless, one would expect NTIA to continue her due deligence on the ICG part of the requirement pending the provision of that of the CCWG otherwise it may be good to hear from NTIA whether such delay would significantly delay the transition process in any way. Regards 1. https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/TimelineGraphic-v11.pdf On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> 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.
Best regards, Mathieu
PS: a PDF version will be circulated shortly
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Dear All Remote approval may not be possible for some SOs and ACs certainly almost impossible for GAC. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 6 Oct 2015, at 15:37, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Mathieu,
Thanks for the shared timeline. Owning to the ongoing discussion, I can say it seem realistic (if not ambitious). That said, I observed none of the scenarios plans approval of catering organizations with the normal ICANN face 2 face meetings in mind. Does it mean that its been confirmed from all the catering organizations that they could provide their approval(or otherwise) remotely? I know ALAC may be able to pull that off, but I doubt same will be possible for GAC and ccNSO.
That said, looking at the ICG timeline[1], it seem the CCWG report will be getting to NTIA much later than the ICG combined proposal(assuming ICG timeline is still followed as indicated). Nevertheless, one would expect NTIA to continue her due deligence on the ICG part of the requirement pending the provision of that of the CCWG otherwise it may be good to hear from NTIA whether such delay would significantly delay the transition process in any way.
Regards 1. https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/TimelineGraphic-v11.pdf
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> 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.
Best regards, Mathieu
PS: a PDF version will be circulated shortly
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Kavouss I feel we should first check with GAC before making such statements regards Jorge Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 06.10.2015 um 18:20 schrieb Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear All Remote approval may not be possible for some SOs and ACs certainly almost impossible for GAC. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 6 Oct 2015, at 15:37, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello Mathieu, Thanks for the shared timeline. Owning to the ongoing discussion, I can say it seem realistic (if not ambitious). That said, I observed none of the scenarios plans approval of catering organizations with the normal ICANN face 2 face meetings in mind. Does it mean that its been confirmed from all the catering organizations that they could provide their approval(or otherwise) remotely? I know ALAC may be able to pull that off, but I doubt same will be possible for GAC and ccNSO. That said, looking at the ICG timeline[1], it seem the CCWG report will be getting to NTIA much later than the ICG combined proposal(assuming ICG timeline is still followed as indicated). Nevertheless, one would expect NTIA to continue her due deligence on the ICG part of the requirement pending the provision of that of the CCWG otherwise it may be good to hear from NTIA whether such delay would significantly delay the transition process in any way. Regards 1. https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/TimelineGraphic-v11.pdf On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> 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. Best regards, Mathieu PS: a PDF version will be circulated shortly _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thank you Mathieu and the other co-Chairs. While it may not be possible since the content of the proposed way forward is not known at this time, is there any estimate of when the pre-transition implementation of required WS 1 accountability measures would be completed under these scenarios? My recollection is that under the discarded timeline of delivering a proposal for chartering organization consideration in Dublin, completion of that implementation was envisioned to occur by early July 2016. Should we simply add either one or three months to that under these two scenarios, or is there any reason to believe that such implementation can be accomplished more rapidly once a model is settled upon? Thank you and best regards, Philip 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 -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 8:58 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Timeline scenarios - initial draft for comments 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. Best regards, Mathieu PS: a PDF version will be circulated shortly ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
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
Any proposal for a new CCWG timeline that does not include the necessary 30-day public comment period for our revised proposal is not likely to get support within this group or the larger community. We can't short-cut important public input points over exaggerated urgency claims. Robin On Oct 6, 2015, at 8:34 AM, Malcolm Hutty 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
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
I completely agree. 1) A readable, simple high level summary is one report and should in my view be our core "output". 2) Then a chapter by chapter "operationalisation" report that explains the design intent and details, more clear but maybe about the same length as the body of our current report. 3) Then a report that is the detailed draft Bylaws framework that sets out precisely how it would / could look in the rules. 4) Then a process / options considered etc report. They all have different audiences. 4) is vital for NTIA and for policy focused people. 3) is the concrete and crystal clear detail we haven't yet provided. 2) explains the logic. 1) presents the vision. Jordan On 8 October 2015 at 04:52, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *
Likewise. Excellent suggestions. Readability and clarity will be key to militating perceptions of complexity. On 11/10/2015 04:08, Jordan Carter wrote:
I completely agree.
1) A readable, simple high level summary is one report and should in my view be our core "output".
2) Then a chapter by chapter "operationalisation" report that explains the design intent and details, more clear but maybe about the same length as the body of our current report.
3) Then a report that is the detailed draft Bylaws framework that sets out precisely how it would / could look in the rules.
4) Then a process / options considered etc report.
They all have different audiences. 4) is vital for NTIA and for policy focused people. 3) is the concrete and crystal clear detail we haven't yet provided. 2) explains the logic. 1) presents the vision.
Jordan
On 8 October 2015 at 04:52, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
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 <mailto: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 <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> 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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
/A better world through a better Internet /
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I agree with the proposed structure of the Report. And fully agree with caution/ warning that we should not rush for the preparation of the draft. Elements that are carefully prepared and fully examined nay be submitted and those yet to be submitted will carefully be prepared , examined and submitted once completed. NO rush Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Oct 2015, at 10:17, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
Likewise. Excellent suggestions. Readability and clarity will be key to militating perceptions of complexity.
On 11/10/2015 04:08, Jordan Carter wrote: I completely agree.
1) A readable, simple high level summary is one report and should in my view be our core "output".
2) Then a chapter by chapter "operationalisation" report that explains the design intent and details, more clear but maybe about the same length as the body of our current report.
3) Then a report that is the detailed draft Bylaws framework that sets out precisely how it would / could look in the rules.
4) Then a process / options considered etc report.
They all have different audiences. 4) is vital for NTIA and for policy focused people. 3) is the concrete and crystal clear detail we haven't yet provided. 2) explains the logic. 1) presents the vision.
Jordan
On 8 October 2015 at 04:52, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
A better world through a better Internet
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Jordan, Well stated. Greg On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with the proposed structure of the Report. And fully agree with caution/ warning that we should not rush for the preparation of the draft. Elements that are carefully prepared and fully examined nay be submitted and those yet to be submitted will carefully be prepared , examined and submitted once completed. NO rush Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Oct 2015, at 10:17, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
Likewise. Excellent suggestions. Readability and clarity will be key to militating perceptions of complexity.
On 11/10/2015 04:08, Jordan Carter wrote:
I completely agree.
1) A readable, simple high level summary is one report and should in my view be our core "output".
2) Then a chapter by chapter "operationalisation" report that explains the design intent and details, more clear but maybe about the same length as the body of our current report.
3) Then a report that is the detailed draft Bylaws framework that sets out precisely how it would / could look in the rules.
4) Then a process / options considered etc report.
They all have different audiences. 4) is vital for NTIA and for policy focused people. 3) is the concrete and crystal clear detail we haven't yet provided. 2) explains the logic. 1) presents the vision.
Jordan
On 8 October 2015 at 04:52, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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> 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 <%2B44%2020%207645%203523> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | <http://publicaffairs.linx.net/> 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: <http://www.internetnz.nz>www.internetnz.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org+ 44 771 247 2987
------------------------------ [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Completely agree. I volunteer to contribute to this effort. Regards, Keith On Oct 11, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Jordan, Well stated. Greg On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: I agree with the proposed structure of the Report. And fully agree with caution/ warning that we should not rush for the preparation of the draft. Elements that are carefully prepared and fully examined nay be submitted and those yet to be submitted will carefully be prepared , examined and submitted once completed. NO rush Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 11 Oct 2015, at 10:17, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> wrote: Likewise. Excellent suggestions. Readability and clarity will be key to militating perceptions of complexity. On 11/10/2015 04:08, Jordan Carter wrote: I completely agree. 1) A readable, simple high level summary is one report and should in my view be our core "output". 2) Then a chapter by chapter "operationalisation" report that explains the design intent and details, more clear but maybe about the same length as the body of our current report. 3) Then a report that is the detailed draft Bylaws framework that sets out precisely how it would / could look in the rules. 4) Then a process / options considered etc report. They all have different audiences. 4) is vital for NTIA and for policy focused people. 3) is the concrete and crystal clear detail we haven't yet provided. 2) explains the logic. 1) presents the vision. Jordan On 8 October 2015 at 04:52, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: 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 <<mailto:malcolm@linx.net>malcolm@linx.net<mailto: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<tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | <http://publicaffairs.linx.net/> 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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-4-495-2118<tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: <http://www.internetnz.nz> http://www.internetnz.nz A better world through a better Internet _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org> + 44 771 247 2987<tel:%2B%2044%20771%20247%202987> ________________________________ [Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/antivirus> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co - chairs Tks for your thoughts I will revert to you soon Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 6 Oct 2015, at 14:58, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> 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.
Best regards, Mathieu
PS: a PDF version will be circulated shortly <Project Management - scenarios v1.1.pptx> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Can this PDF be circulated, please? el On 2015-10-06 14:58, 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.
Best regards, Mathieu
PS: a PDF version will be circulated shortly
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Hi Eberhard, See attached. Kind regards Alice On 10/7/15 12:30 PM, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Can this PDF be circulated, please?
el
On 2015-10-06 14:58, 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.
Best regards, Mathieu
PS: a PDF version will be circulated shortly
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thank you, el On 2015-10-07 12:44, Alice Jansen wrote:
Hi Eberhard, See attached. Kind regards Alice
On 10/7/15 12:30 PM, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Can this PDF be circulated, please?
el
participants (13)
-
Alice Jansen -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Drazek, Keith -
Greg Shatan -
Jordan Carter -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Malcolm Hutty -
Mathieu Weill -
Matthew Shears -
Phil Corwin -
Robin Gross -
Seun Ojedeji