Comments on the third draft proposal
Those of us in Joao Pessoa are fully aware of the utter ridiculousness of this deadline, and I trust that it will be rescinded in favor of something more reasonable. Note that there is no way that I, or for that matter most everyone else, can read this carefully in the next two hours with everything that is going on here. I learned about this deadline by accident, with only two hours to the deadline. Soon after I found a quiet place to start reading the document, the convention center crew arrived and started to disassemble the room around me, including the chair and table that I was using. Other members of the ICANN Board and staff are so occupied with other activities that they may not even know about the deadline. As personal comments, I suggest the following: 1. The final text of the mission statement is uncertain. In order to contribute to the success of both the transition and the post-transition activities of ICANN, it has to satisfy multiple masters, and it is unclear to me that we are near convergence on what that text should be. I have no concrete suggestions to make, but I know that serious work is underway. 2. There still seems to be some serious disagreement regarding a number of items as to what should be put in WS1 and WS2 respectively. 3. I agree with Bruce Tonkin that the Board is likely to approach items in WS2 in a manner similar to our approach to items in WS1. However, IMHO the content of WS2 cannot be open ended and, inter alia, satisfy the requirement for simplicity and completeness that has been repeatedly mentioned by NTIA, as well as other objections to such open endedness and the presumption of automatic acceptance. [The second room that I found in which to work is now being disassembled from under me] 4. I note that the number of ACs and SOs required to dismiss the entire Board has remained at four in spite of comments suggesting that this may incompatible with the "one objection is not sufficient" "principle" depending upon the GAC's decision to enter or not enter a council. I support this decision to make no change in this threshold. Time has run out. I suggest that the inclusiveness and legitimacy of this step in the accountability process is jeopardized, if not completely destroyed, unless a new and more realistic deadline is set for comments on the third draft of this new document. George
George is on the money. Time has run out. I suggest that the inclusiveness and legitimacy of the accountability process has been fundamentally jeopardized, if not completely destroyed. Some good work has been done, but I submit that the artificial deadlines and the way that fundamentally new concepts have been introduced 'out of thin air' have significantly prejudiced the chances of success, possibly fatally.
I am not often in agreement with George on many substantive issues :-) But on this issue of process he is 100% accurate. A =partial= catalog of things we are now considering that are substantially different from where we were the day before Dublin started include: Shift from Member to Designator Mission Statement with or without limitations on contractual obligations GAC engagement and ST-18 And, of course, today's addition: Availability/non-availability of SO-specific veto or proposal authority. I get, completely, the need for us to not dally. But these issues are so significant (I would say they lie at the very core of what we are doing) that they MUST be resolved now. They cannot be pushed to WS2 and they cannot be hurried any faster. Add into this the prospect that the next public comment period will span the December holiday time (admittedly, a cultural circumstance specific to only some of the Members and Participants) and we gravely risk the credibility of this process by rushing it. My limited perception is that a major process foul is the most likely way to have our report rejected -- either by the chartering organizations or the NTIA Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 2:39 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Comments on the third draft proposal George is on the money. Time has run out. I suggest that the inclusiveness and legitimacy of the accountability process has been fundamentally jeopardized, if not completely destroyed. Some good work has been done, but I submit that the artificial deadlines and the way that fundamentally new concepts have been introduced 'out of thin air' have significantly prejudiced the chances of success, possibly fatally. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Paul, Based upon your examples, I believe that you have misinterpreted my remarks. Both of us have been following this process fairly closely since Dublin, and we are fully informed about the many shifts in position that have taken place since Dublin. My protest against the deadline was specifically because of the impossible task of responding to a deadline of hours in reviewing a document. In fact, since I posted, it has been pointed out to me that the deadline was 1700 UTC, not 1700 in Joao Pessoa, so that when I was informed about the document, the deadline had already passed! Now this document is not the formal third version of the proposal, so I know that this is not the last chance to comment. It isn't; that will happen in December. What I wanted to do was to ensure that there were no egregious deviations from my own sense of what would be a sensible manner of proceeding to a mutually acceptable result. There is something unsettling about commenting on what was originally meant to be a summary document when the underlying document does not yet exist. Several people have expressed their concern about that. So I regard the document just circulated rather as a predictive document, a document that foreshadows the things to come. That's fine and it's useful. Most of what's in that document was expected to be familiar, and it was, but given the amount of flux that i sensed on the list in the last week, I was concerned that some fundamental changes might have occurred that would give me concern. I do thank the co-chairs for doing their best to maintain the schedule, but i would hope that comments on this document be accepted and be actionable for a few more days. George
On Nov 13, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
I am not often in agreement with George on many substantive issues :-) But on this issue of process he is 100% accurate. A =partial= catalog of things we are now considering that are substantially different from where we were the day before Dublin started include:
Shift from Member to Designator Mission Statement with or without limitations on contractual obligations GAC engagement and ST-18 And, of course, today's addition: Availability/non-availability of SO-specific veto or proposal authority.
I get, completely, the need for us to not dally. But these issues are so significant (I would say they lie at the very core of what we are doing) that they MUST be resolved now. They cannot be pushed to WS2 and they cannot be hurried any faster. Add into this the prospect that the next public comment period will span the December holiday time (admittedly, a cultural circumstance specific to only some of the Members and Participants) and we gravely risk the credibility of this process by rushing it. My limited perception is that a major process foul is the most likely way to have our report rejected -- either by the chartering organizations or the NTIA
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 2:39 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Comments on the third draft proposal
George is on the money.
Time has run out. I suggest that the inclusiveness and legitimacy of the accountability process has been fundamentally jeopardized, if not completely destroyed.
Some good work has been done, but I submit that the artificial deadlines and the way that fundamentally new concepts have been introduced 'out of thin air' have significantly prejudiced the chances of success, possibly fatally. _______________________________________________ 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
Fair enough. I suppose then, that while I share your concern (having also missed the comment deadline for this summary) mine is broader. I have a real sense that many fundamental issues remain to be settled and/or are being reopened and/or we are just recognizing some unanticipated collateral consequences of decisions taken. I fear that the overall process is too rushed as well. Regards Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 4:18 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Comments on the third draft proposal Dear Paul, Based upon your examples, I believe that you have misinterpreted my remarks. Both of us have been following this process fairly closely since Dublin, and we are fully informed about the many shifts in position that have taken place since Dublin. My protest against the deadline was specifically because of the impossible task of responding to a deadline of hours in reviewing a document. In fact, since I posted, it has been pointed out to me that the deadline was 1700 UTC, not 1700 in Joao Pessoa, so that when I was informed about the document, the deadline had already passed! Now this document is not the formal third version of the proposal, so I know that this is not the last chance to comment. It isn't; that will happen in December. What I wanted to do was to ensure that there were no egregious deviations from my own sense of what would be a sensible manner of proceeding to a mutually acceptable result. There is something unsettling about commenting on what was originally meant to be a summary document when the underlying document does not yet exist. Several people have expressed their concern about that. So I regard the document just circulated rather as a predictive document, a document that foreshadows the things to come. That's fine and it's useful. Most of what's in that document was expected to be familiar, and it was, but given the amount of flux that i sensed on the list in the last week, I was concerned that some fundamental changes might have occurred that would give me concern. I do thank the co-chairs for doing their best to maintain the schedule, but i would hope that comments on this document be accepted and be actionable for a few more days. George
On Nov 13, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
I am not often in agreement with George on many substantive issues :-) But on this issue of process he is 100% accurate. A =partial= catalog of things we are now considering that are substantially different from where we were the day before Dublin started include:
Shift from Member to Designator Mission Statement with or without limitations on contractual obligations GAC engagement and ST-18 And, of course, today's addition: Availability/non-availability of SO-specific veto or proposal authority.
I get, completely, the need for us to not dally. But these issues are so significant (I would say they lie at the very core of what we are doing) that they MUST be resolved now. They cannot be pushed to WS2 and they cannot be hurried any faster. Add into this the prospect that the next public comment period will span the December holiday time (admittedly, a cultural circumstance specific to only some of the Members and Participants) and we gravely risk the credibility of this process by rushing it. My limited perception is that a major process foul is the most likely way to have our report rejected -- either by the chartering organizations or the NTIA
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 2:39 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Comments on the third draft proposal
George is on the money.
Time has run out. I suggest that the inclusiveness and legitimacy of the accountability process has been fundamentally jeopardized, if not completely destroyed.
Some good work has been done, but I submit that the artificial deadlines and the way that fundamentally new concepts have been introduced 'out of thin air' have significantly prejudiced the chances of success, possibly fatally. _______________________________________________ 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
participants (3)
-
George Sadowsky -
Nigel Roberts -
Paul Rosenzweig