Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary
While others address the substance of this first full draft of the executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns about the timeline for public comments – including statements from and consideration by the Chartering Organizations. Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there had been any community discussion to extend the comment period, and this is the reply I made, with special emphasis on my role as a member of the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin consideration of draft GNSO comments regarding the 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th --- “I don’t know of any discussion yet to extend the comment period, but wouldn’t be all that surprised if there is one, given that this designator model is a major revision and deviation from the prior member model. Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline, especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent the BC. While the summary report (first draft of which I just forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15th, the full and detailed draft proposal won’t be out until two weeks later, on November 30th. I’ve been through enough legislative processes to know that staff-drafted summaries can never be relied upon to fully and accurately convey the language and potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in the underlying text, and that there is no substitute for its line-by-line dissection. November 30th is only three weeks prior to the December 21st deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form and submit a fully informed comment, especially for trade associations and other groups which must consider multiple inputs. Even more worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the Council is supposed to “Share draft GNSO comment on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal” on December 5th, just five days after the full text is released. As I am supposed to represent your consensus views, it means the BC has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss the full text, and that Councilors must then attempt in the short remaining time to reconcile the separate views of those they represent into a single consensus draft GNSO comment. (I do note that the Council has almost two additional weeks to massage its comment, as the target for submission is December 18th.) This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its consensus views prior to any opportunity to review all the public comments. This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council makes final determinations only after it reviews all public comments. It also puts a large degree of pressure on those constituencies that Councilors represent to instruct us on their views long before the comment period has concluded. My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists for a reason. I’m not for undue delay, but I am for adequate scrutiny, and I am concerned that this timeline does not provide sufficient time for that. “ Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning’s CCWG call, just concluded. Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to limit ICANN’s ability to “regulate” use of the Internet. On page 30 of the Summary memo it says this: The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to: • Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to the Domain Name System (DNS) o ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties (entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain names) [Emphasis added] But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous discussion there is still no agreement on what that language should be, or even the scope of the limitation it is trying to describe (in fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that second point). So on that key subject no one can draft an intelligent and informed comment based upon the high level summary document to be released on 11/15, and must await the full text promised for 11/30 – yet Councilors are supposed to survey those they represent and begin consideration of a draft GNSO comment by December 5th. Let’s be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully informed public comments can be developed and submitted is presently only three weeks, from November 30th to December 21st. For the Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to consider the approval of the CCWG-Accountability 3rd CCWG Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 17th, with the Council Statement being submitted one day later on December 18th. Then Councillors are supposed to consider final documents and motions as early as two weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4th), if the Proposal has changed in any way from the third draft put out for comment -- notwithstanding the fact that both the Christmas and New Year holidays occur within that period. And, BTW, is it realistic to think that the CCWG will be able to review all the comments and draft responsive consensus amendments in the middle of those two weeks? So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that differs quite substantially from the prior member model, prepare thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments. I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of the Accountability process as soon as possible. But I also have strong concerns that we are not providing sufficient time for review of a proposed structure that the community will have to live within for years, and likely decades. 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 Bernard Turcotte Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary All, Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow. Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock. Bernard Turcotte Staff Support for the co-chairs. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
I have said before, this ambitious timeline is unrealistic. To the extent of invalidating the process. And for the record, I renew my objections against it. el On 2015-11-10 16:22, Phil Corwin wrote:
While others address the substance of this first full draft of the executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns about the timeline for public comments – including statements from and consideration by the Chartering Organizations.
Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there had been any community discussion to extend the comment period, and this is the reply I made, with special emphasis on my role as a member of the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin consideration of draft GNSO comments regarding the 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th ---
“I don’t know of any discussion yet to extend the comment period, but wouldn’t be all that surprised if there is one, given that this designator model is a major revision and deviation from the prior member model.
Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline, especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent the BC. While the summary report (first draft of which I just forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15^th , the full and detailed draft proposal won’t be out until two weeks later, on November 30^th . I’ve been through enough legislative processes to know that staff-drafted summaries can never be relied upon to fully and accurately convey the language and potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in the underlying text, and that there is no substitute for its line-by-line dissection.
November 30^th is only three weeks prior to the December 21^st deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form and submit a fully informed comment, especially for trade associations and other groups which must consider multiple inputs. *Even more worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the Council is supposed to “Share draft GNSO comment on 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal” on December 5^th , just five days after the full text is released. As I am supposed to represent your consensus views, it means the BC has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss the full text, and that Councilors must then attempt in the short remaining time to reconcile the separate views of those they represent into a single consensus draft GNSO comment. (I do note that the Council has almost two additional weeks to massage its comment, as the target for submission is December 18^th .)*
* *
This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its consensus views _prior to_ any opportunity to review all the public comments. This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council makes final determinations only _after_ it reviews all public comments. It also puts a large degree of pressure on those constituencies that Councilors represent to instruct us on their views long before the comment period has concluded.
My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists for a reason. I’m not for undue delay, but I am for adequate scrutiny, and I am concerned that this timeline does not provide sufficient time for that. “
_Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning’s CCWG call, just concluded. _
Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to limit ICANN’s ability to “regulate” use of the Internet. On page 30 of the Summary memo it says this:
The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to:
• Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to the Domain Name
System (DNS)
o *ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the*
*content that such services carry or provide.*
*o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties*
*(entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain*
*names) *[Emphasis added]
But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous discussion there is still no agreement on what that language should be, or even the scope of the limitation it is trying to describe (in fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that second point). So on that key subject no one can draft an intelligent and informed comment based upon the high level summary document to be released on 11/15, and must await the full text promised for 11/30 – yet Councilors are supposed to survey those they represent and begin consideration of a draft GNSO comment by December 5^th .
_Let’s be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully informed public comments can be developed and submitted is presently only three weeks, from November 30^th to December 21^st ._For the Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to consider the approval of the CCWG-Accountability 3^rd CCWG Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 17^th , with the Council Statement being submitted one day later on December 18^th . Then Councillors are supposed to consider final documents and motions as early as two weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4^th ), if the Proposal has changed in any way from the third draft put out for comment -- notwithstanding the fact that both the Christmas and New Year holidays occur within that period. And, BTW, is it realistic to think that the CCWG will be able to review all the comments and draft responsive consensus amendments in the middle of those two weeks?
So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that differs quite substantially from the prior member model, prepare thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments.
I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of the Accountability process as soon as possible. But I also have strong concerns that we are not providing sufficient time for review of a proposed structure that the community will have to live within for years, and likely decades.
*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 *Bernard Turcotte *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary
All,
Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow.
Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock.
Bernard Turcotte
Staff Support
for the co-chairs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ 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 ;____/
I just want to lend my support to Phil and his comments related to the timeline, particularly as applied to the chartering SOAC's. It is very disconcerting that hard decisions, recommendations and endorsements are expected from the SOAC's in such a rushed fashion. My fear is we'll be forced to base a lot of our assessments on the summary report rather than the full draft itself. While I'd rather push end dates out further, if that is not going to happen anything that can be done to get the full draft out even days earlier would be helpful. Five days just is not enough time for our GNSO constituent parts to fully assess the draft and for Councillors like Phil and myself to assess our groups assessments and then attempt to work together to reconcile divergent views and produce a consensus GNSO response. Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 2:32 PM To: "Bernard Turcotte" <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>, "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary While others address the substance of this first full draft of the executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns about the timeline for public comments - including statements from and consideration by the Chartering Organizations. Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there had been any community discussion to extend the comment period, and this is the reply I made, with special emphasis on my role as a member of the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin consideration of draft GNSO comments regarding the 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th --- "I don't know of any discussion yet to extend the comment period, but wouldn't be all that surprised if there is one, given that this designator model is a major revision and deviation from the prior member model. Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline, especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent the BC. While the summary report (first draft of which I just forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15th, the full and detailed draft proposal won't be out until two weeks later, on November 30th. I've been through enough legislative processes to know that staff-drafted summaries can never be relied upon to fully and accurately convey the language and potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in the underlying text, and that there is no substitute for its line-by-line dissection. November 30th is only three weeks prior to the December 21st deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form and submit a fully informed comment, especially for trade associations and other groups which must consider multiple inputs. Even more worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the Council is supposed to "Share draft GNSO comment on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal" on December 5th, just five days after the full text is released. As I am supposed to represent your consensus views, it means the BC has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss the full text, and that Councilors must then attempt in the short remaining time to reconcile the separate views of those they represent into a single consensus draft GNSO comment. (I do note that the Council has almost two additional weeks to massage its comment, as the target for submission is December 18th.) This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its consensus views prior to any opportunity to review all the public comments. This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council makes final determinations only after it reviews all public comments. It also puts a large degree of pressure on those constituencies that Councilors represent to instruct us on their views long before the comment period has concluded. My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists for a reason. I'm not for undue delay, but I am for adequate scrutiny, and I am concerned that this timeline does not provide sufficient time for that. " Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning's CCWG call, just concluded. Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to limit ICANN's ability to "regulate" use of the Internet. On page 30 of the Summary memo it says this: The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN's Mission and Core Values to: . Reinforce the scope of ICANN's organizational activities related to the Domain Name System (DNS) o ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties (entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain names) [Emphasis added] But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous discussion there is still no agreement on what that language should be, or even the scope of the limitation it is trying to describe (in fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that second point). So on that key subject no one can draft an intelligent and informed comment based upon the high level summary document to be released on 11/15, and must await the full text promised for 11/30 - yet Councilors are supposed to survey those they represent and begin consideration of a draft GNSO comment by December 5th. Let's be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully informed public comments can be developed and submitted is presently only three weeks, from November 30th to December 21st. For the Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to consider the approval of the CCWG-Accountability 3rd CCWG Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 17th, with the Council Statement being submitted one day later on December 18th. Then Councillors are supposed to consider final documents and motions as early as two weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4th), if the Proposal has changed in any way from the third draft put out for comment -- notwithstanding the fact that both the Christmas and New Year holidays occur within that period. And, BTW, is it realistic to think that the CCWG will be able to review all the comments and draft responsive consensus amendments in the middle of those two weeks? So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that differs quite substantially from the prior member model, prepare thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments. I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of the Accountability process as soon as possible. But I also have strong concerns that we are not providing sufficient time for review of a proposed structure that the community will have to live within for years, and likely decades. 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 Bernard Turcotte Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary All, Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow. Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock. Bernard Turcotte Staff Support for the co-chairs. ---------------------------------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
I share Phil's concerns (and, this time, even Eberhard's concerns). This timeline doesn't work. I wish I'd picked up the issue earlier, but I'm already responding on so many different issues that I feel like an octopus. You have to let some through and hope that another octopus (or starfish) picks it up. There are carts before horses all over the place. The timing of the public comment process and the SO/AC approval process doesn't work, and the interplay between the two is backwards. I think the set-up we have essentially invalidates the public comment process, both as a direct input to our work, and as an input to SO/AC approval. I've already heard people I respect say "don't worry about the public comment process, it's a waste of time; focus on the SO/AC approval process." But how does the SO/AC approval process work if the SO/AC members and constituent parts haven't been able to officially digest the Report, confer among themselves and with others and come up with positions, and attempt to resolve those positions during the time allowed? I also agree that this is based on a series of Herculean and unworkable assumptions. There's an old joke about the sign in the lawyer's office: GOOD, FAST, CHEAP -- PICK ANY TWO. We already know we're cheap (heck, we're free), so the choice boils down to two options: GOOD or FAST. Greg On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
While others address the substance of this first full draft of the executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns about the timeline for public comments – including statements from and consideration by the Chartering Organizations.
Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there had been any community discussion to extend the comment period, and this is the reply I made, with special emphasis on my role as a member of the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin consideration of draft GNSO comments regarding the 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th ---
“I don’t know of any discussion yet to extend the comment period, but wouldn’t be all that surprised if there is one, given that this designator model is a major revision and deviation from the prior member model.
Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline, especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent the BC. While the summary report (first draft of which I just forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15th, the full and detailed draft proposal won’t be out until two weeks later, on November 30th. I’ve been through enough legislative processes to know that staff-drafted summaries can never be relied upon to fully and accurately convey the language and potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in the underlying text, and that there is no substitute for its line-by-line dissection.
November 30th is only three weeks prior to the December 21st deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form and submit a fully informed comment, especially for trade associations and other groups which must consider multiple inputs. *Even more worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the Council is supposed to “Share draft GNSO comment on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal” on December 5th, just five days after the full text is released. As I am supposed to represent your consensus views, it means the BC has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss the full text, and that Councilors must then attempt in the short remaining time to reconcile the separate views of those they represent into a single consensus draft GNSO comment. (I do note that the Council has almost two additional weeks to massage its comment, as the target for submission is December 18th.)*
This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its consensus views *prior to* any opportunity to review all the public comments. This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council makes final determinations only *after* it reviews all public comments. It also puts a large degree of pressure on those constituencies that Councilors represent to instruct us on their views long before the comment period has concluded.
My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists for a reason. I’m not for undue delay, but I am for adequate scrutiny, and I am concerned that this timeline does not provide sufficient time for that. “
*Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning’s CCWG call, just concluded. *
Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to limit ICANN’s ability to “regulate” use of the Internet. On page 30 of the Summary memo it says this:
The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to:
• Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to the Domain Name
System (DNS)
o *ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the*
*content that such services carry or provide.*
*o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties*
*(entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain*
*names) *[Emphasis added]
But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous discussion there is still no agreement on what that language should be, or even the scope of the limitation it is trying to describe (in fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that second point). So on that key subject no one can draft an intelligent and informed comment based upon the high level summary document to be released on 11/15, and must await the full text promised for 11/30 – yet Councilors are supposed to survey those they represent and begin consideration of a draft GNSO comment by December 5th.
*Let’s be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully informed public comments can be developed and submitted is presently only three weeks, from November 30th to December 21st.* For the Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to consider the approval of the CCWG-Accountability 3rd CCWG Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 17th, with the Council Statement being submitted one day later on December 18th. Then Councillors are supposed to consider final documents and motions as early as two weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4th), if the Proposal has changed in any way from the third draft put out for comment -- notwithstanding the fact that both the Christmas and New Year holidays occur within that period. And, BTW, is it realistic to think that the CCWG will be able to review all the comments and draft responsive consensus amendments in the middle of those two weeks?
So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that differs quite substantially from the prior member model, prepare thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments.
I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of the Accountability process as soon as possible. But I also have strong concerns that we are not providing sufficient time for review of a proposed structure that the community will have to live within for years, and likely decades.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <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 *Bernard Turcotte *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary
All,
Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow.
Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock.
Bernard Turcotte
Staff Support
for the co-chairs. ------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Greg is right. The Co-Chairs and ICANN itself seem to prefer 'FAST'. On 11/10/2015 04:10 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
I share Phil's concerns (and, this time, even Eberhard's concerns).
This timeline doesn't work. I wish I'd picked up the issue earlier, but I'm already responding on so many different issues that I feel like an octopus. You have to let some through and hope that another octopus (or starfish) picks it up.
There are carts before horses all over the place. The timing of the public comment process and the SO/AC approval process doesn't work, and the interplay between the two is backwards. I think the set-up we have essentially invalidates the public comment process, both as a direct input to our work, and as an input to SO/AC approval. I've already heard people I respect say "don't worry about the public comment process, it's a waste of time; focus on the SO/AC approval process." But how does the SO/AC approval process work if the SO/AC members and constituent parts haven't been able to officially digest the Report, confer among themselves and with others and come up with positions, and attempt to resolve those positions during the time allowed?
I also agree that this is based on a series of Herculean and unworkable assumptions.
There's an old joke about the sign in the lawyer's office: GOOD, FAST, CHEAP -- PICK ANY TWO. We already know we're cheap (heck, we're free), so the choice boils down to two options: GOOD or FAST.
Greg
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
While others address the substance of this first full draft of the executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns about the timeline for public comments – including statements from and consideration by the Chartering Organizations.____
__ __
Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there had been any community discussion to extend the comment period, and this is the reply I made, with special emphasis on my role as a member of the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin consideration of draft GNSO comments regarding the 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th ---____
__ __
“I don’t know of any discussion yet to extend the comment period, but wouldn’t be all that surprised if there is one, given that this designator model is a major revision and deviation from the prior member model.____
__ __
Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline, especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent the BC. While the summary report (first draft of which I just forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15^th , the full and detailed draft proposal won’t be out until two weeks later, on November 30^th . I’ve been through enough legislative processes to know that staff-drafted summaries can never be relied upon to fully and accurately convey the language and potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in the underlying text, and that there is no substitute for its line-by-line dissection.____
__ __
November 30^th is only three weeks prior to the December 21^st deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form and submit a fully informed comment, especially for trade associations and other groups which must consider multiple inputs. *Even more worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the Council is supposed to “Share draft GNSO comment on 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal” on December 5^th , just five days after the full text is released. As I am supposed to represent your consensus views, it means the BC has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss the full text, and that Councilors must then attempt in the short remaining time to reconcile the separate views of those they represent into a single consensus draft GNSO comment. (I do note that the Council has almost two additional weeks to massage its comment, as the target for submission is December 18^th .)____*
*__ __*
This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its consensus views _prior to_ any opportunity to review all the public comments. This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council makes final determinations only _after_ it reviews all public comments. It also puts a large degree of pressure on those constituencies that Councilors represent to instruct us on their views long before the comment period has concluded.____
__ __
My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists for a reason. I’m not for undue delay, but I am for adequate scrutiny, and I am concerned that this timeline does not provide sufficient time for that. “____
__ __
_Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning’s CCWG call, just concluded. _____
__ __
Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to limit ICANN’s ability to “regulate” use of the Internet. On page 30 of the Summary memo it says this:____
The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to:____
• Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to the Domain Name____
System (DNS)____
o *ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the____*
*content that such services carry or provide.____*
*o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties____*
*(entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain____*
*names) *[Emphasis added]____
__ __
But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous discussion there is still no agreement on what that language should be, or even the scope of the limitation it is trying to describe (in fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that second point). So on that key subject no one can draft an intelligent and informed comment based upon the high level summary document to be released on 11/15, and must await the full text promised for 11/30 – yet Councilors are supposed to survey those they represent and begin consideration of a draft GNSO comment by December 5^th .____
__ __
_Let’s be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully informed public comments can be developed and submitted is presently only three weeks, from November 30^th to December 21^st ._For the Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to consider the approval of the CCWG-Accountability 3^rd CCWG Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 17^th , with the Council Statement being submitted one day later on December 18^th . Then Councillors are supposed to consider final documents and motions as early as two weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4^th ), if the Proposal has changed in any way from the third draft put out for comment -- notwithstanding the fact that both the Christmas and New Year holidays occur within that period. And, BTW, is it realistic to think that the CCWG will be able to review all the comments and draft responsive consensus amendments in the middle of those two weeks?____
__ __
So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that differs quite substantially from the prior member model, prepare thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments. ____
__ __
I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of the Accountability process as soon as possible. But I also have strong concerns that we are not providing sufficient time for review of a proposed structure that the community will have to live within for years, and likely decades.____
__ __
__ __
__ __
__ __
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*____
*Virtualaw LLC*____
*1155 F Street, NW*____
*Suite 1050*____
*Washington, DC 20004*____
*202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct*____
*202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax*____
*202-255-6172 <tel: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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Bernard Turcotte *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary____
__ __
All,____
__ __
Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow.____
__ __
Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock.____
__ __
Bernard Turcotte____
Staff Support____
__ __
for the co-chairs.____
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.____
_______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I agree and maintain the objections I raised in Dublin when this timeline was proposed. It simply is backwards to have final public comment *before* the details of our report are made known - especially since we are making significant changes to what we had before and as we have heard a mission times "the devil is in the detail". The pressure to rush this through immediately cannot be allowed to eviscerate the important public consultations and bottom-up processes we allegedly claim to adhere to. Let's not undermine the legitimacy of this process in the rush to complete the work according to exterior timelines. WE set the timeline for the IANA transition, not the other way around. Robin On Nov 10, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Greg is right.
The Co-Chairs and ICANN itself seem to prefer 'FAST'.
On 11/10/2015 04:10 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
I share Phil's concerns (and, this time, even Eberhard's concerns).
This timeline doesn't work. I wish I'd picked up the issue earlier, but I'm already responding on so many different issues that I feel like an octopus. You have to let some through and hope that another octopus (or starfish) picks it up.
There are carts before horses all over the place. The timing of the public comment process and the SO/AC approval process doesn't work, and the interplay between the two is backwards. I think the set-up we have essentially invalidates the public comment process, both as a direct input to our work, and as an input to SO/AC approval. I've already heard people I respect say "don't worry about the public comment process, it's a waste of time; focus on the SO/AC approval process." But how does the SO/AC approval process work if the SO/AC members and constituent parts haven't been able to officially digest the Report, confer among themselves and with others and come up with positions, and attempt to resolve those positions during the time allowed?
I also agree that this is based on a series of Herculean and unworkable assumptions.
There's an old joke about the sign in the lawyer's office: GOOD, FAST, CHEAP -- PICK ANY TWO. We already know we're cheap (heck, we're free), so the choice boils down to two options: GOOD or FAST.
Greg
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
While others address the substance of this first full draft of the executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns about the timeline for public comments – including statements from and consideration by the Chartering Organizations.____
__ __
Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there had been any community discussion to extend the comment period, and this is the reply I made, with special emphasis on my role as a member of the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin consideration of draft GNSO comments regarding the 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th ---____
__ __
“I don’t know of any discussion yet to extend the comment period, but wouldn’t be all that surprised if there is one, given that this designator model is a major revision and deviation from the prior member model.____
__ __
Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline, especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent the BC. While the summary report (first draft of which I just forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15^th , the full and detailed draft proposal won’t be out until two weeks later, on November 30^th . I’ve been through enough legislative processes to know that staff-drafted summaries can never be relied upon to fully and accurately convey the language and potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in the underlying text, and that there is no substitute for its line-by-line dissection.____
__ __
November 30^th is only three weeks prior to the December 21^st deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form and submit a fully informed comment, especially for trade associations and other groups which must consider multiple inputs. *Even more worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the Council is supposed to “Share draft GNSO comment on 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal” on December 5^th , just five days after the full text is released. As I am supposed to represent your consensus views, it means the BC has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss the full text, and that Councilors must then attempt in the short remaining time to reconcile the separate views of those they represent into a single consensus draft GNSO comment. (I do note that the Council has almost two additional weeks to massage its comment, as the target for submission is December 18^th .)____*
*__ __*
This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its consensus views _prior to_ any opportunity to review all the public comments. This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council makes final determinations only _after_ it reviews all public comments. It also puts a large degree of pressure on those constituencies that Councilors represent to instruct us on their views long before the comment period has concluded.____
__ __
My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists for a reason. I’m not for undue delay, but I am for adequate scrutiny, and I am concerned that this timeline does not provide sufficient time for that. “____
__ __
_Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning’s CCWG call, just concluded. _____
__ __
Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to limit ICANN’s ability to “regulate” use of the Internet. On page 30 of the Summary memo it says this:____
The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to:____
• Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to the Domain Name____
System (DNS)____
o *ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the____*
*content that such services carry or provide.____*
*o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties____*
*(entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain____*
*names) *[Emphasis added]____
__ __
But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous discussion there is still no agreement on what that language should be, or even the scope of the limitation it is trying to describe (in fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that second point). So on that key subject no one can draft an intelligent and informed comment based upon the high level summary document to be released on 11/15, and must await the full text promised for 11/30 – yet Councilors are supposed to survey those they represent and begin consideration of a draft GNSO comment by December 5^th .____
__ __
_Let’s be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully informed public comments can be developed and submitted is presently only three weeks, from November 30^th to December 21^st ._For the Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to consider the approval of the CCWG-Accountability 3^rd CCWG Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 17^th , with the Council Statement being submitted one day later on December 18^th . Then Councillors are supposed to consider final documents and motions as early as two weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4^th ), if the Proposal has changed in any way from the third draft put out for comment -- notwithstanding the fact that both the Christmas and New Year holidays occur within that period. And, BTW, is it realistic to think that the CCWG will be able to review all the comments and draft responsive consensus amendments in the middle of those two weeks?____
__ __
So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that differs quite substantially from the prior member model, prepare thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments. ____
__ __
I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of the Accountability process as soon as possible. But I also have strong concerns that we are not providing sufficient time for review of a proposed structure that the community will have to live within for years, and likely decades.____
__ __
__ __
__ __
__ __
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*____
*Virtualaw LLC*____
*1155 F Street, NW*____
*Suite 1050*____
*Washington, DC 20004*____
*202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct*____
*202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax*____
*202-255-6172 <tel: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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Bernard Turcotte *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary____
__ __
All,____
__ __
Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow.____
__ __
Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock.____
__ __
Bernard Turcotte____
Staff Support____
__ __
for the co-chairs.____
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.____
_______________________________________________ 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 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
Someone have said what works within numbers may not necessarily be applicable in names, otherwise I would have said this is just a similar scenario of numbers last year. ;-) While I recognise that it's a tight schedule, it may be good to recall that this was agreed upon in Dublin and infact circulated publicly so people are waiting in expectation. It may be good to also remember that the CCWG output is the only major reason why I will say the work of the ICG is not considered complete (due to dependencies). There are external reasons why this process needs to move efficiently fast and those reasons are legitimate. Nevertheless, at this stage I am somewhat doubtful whether an accurate report can be released in 5days time. Perhaps the timeline be push by 1 to 2 weeks further. That said, it's important to note we ourselves are the ones introducing more issues (and reopening already closed issues) which ofcourse impacts on the available time. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 10 Nov 2015 17:35, "Robin Gross" <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I agree and maintain the objections I raised in Dublin when this timeline was proposed. It simply is backwards to have final public comment *before* the details of our report are made known - especially since we are making significant changes to what we had before and as we have heard a mission times "the devil is in the detail".
The pressure to rush this through immediately cannot be allowed to eviscerate the important public consultations and bottom-up processes we allegedly claim to adhere to. Let's not undermine the legitimacy of this process in the rush to complete the work according to exterior timelines. WE set the timeline for the IANA transition, not the other way around.
Robin
On Nov 10, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Greg is right.
The Co-Chairs and ICANN itself seem to prefer 'FAST'.
On 11/10/2015 04:10 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
I share Phil's concerns (and, this time, even Eberhard's concerns).
This timeline doesn't work. I wish I'd picked up the issue earlier, but I'm already responding on so many different issues that I feel like an octopus. You have to let some through and hope that another octopus (or starfish) picks it up.
There are carts before horses all over the place. The timing of the public comment process and the SO/AC approval process doesn't work, and the interplay between the two is backwards. I think the set-up we have essentially invalidates the public comment process, both as a direct input to our work, and as an input to SO/AC approval. I've already heard people I respect say "don't worry about the public comment process, it's a waste of time; focus on the SO/AC approval process." But how does the SO/AC approval process work if the SO/AC members and constituent parts haven't been able to officially digest the Report, confer among themselves and with others and come up with positions, and attempt to resolve those positions during the time allowed?
I also agree that this is based on a series of Herculean and unworkable assumptions.
There's an old joke about the sign in the lawyer's office: GOOD, FAST, CHEAP -- PICK ANY TWO. We already know we're cheap (heck, we're free), so the choice boils down to two options: GOOD or FAST.
Greg
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
While others address the substance of this first full draft of the executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns about the timeline for public comments – including statements from and consideration by the Chartering Organizations.____
__ __
Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there had been any community discussion to extend the comment period, and this is the reply I made, with special emphasis on my role as a member of the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin consideration of draft GNSO comments regarding the 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th ---____
__ __
“I don’t know of any discussion yet to extend the comment period, but wouldn’t be all that surprised if there is one, given that this designator model is a major revision and deviation from the prior member model.____
__ __
Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline, especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent the BC. While the summary report (first draft of which I just forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15^th , the full and detailed draft proposal won’t be out until two weeks later, on November 30^th . I’ve been through enough legislative processes to know that staff-drafted summaries can never be relied upon to fully and accurately convey the language and potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in the underlying text, and that there is no substitute for its line-by-line dissection.____
__ __
November 30^th is only three weeks prior to the December 21^st deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form and submit a fully informed comment, especially for trade associations and other groups which must consider multiple inputs. *Even more worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the Council is supposed to “Share draft GNSO comment on 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal” on December 5^th , just five days after the full text is released. As I am supposed to represent your consensus views, it means the BC has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss the full text, and that Councilors must then attempt in the short remaining time to reconcile the separate views of those they represent into a single consensus draft GNSO comment. (I do note that the Council has almost two additional weeks to massage its comment, as the target for submission is December 18^th .)____*
*__ __*
This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its consensus views _prior to_ any opportunity to review all the public comments. This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council makes final determinations only _after_ it reviews all public comments. It also puts a large degree of pressure on those constituencies that Councilors represent to instruct us on their views long before the comment period has concluded.____
__ __
My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists for a reason. I’m not for undue delay, but I am for adequate scrutiny, and I am concerned that this timeline does not provide sufficient time for that. “____
__ __
_Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning’s CCWG call, just concluded. _____
__ __
Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to limit ICANN’s ability to “regulate” use of the Internet. On page 30 of the Summary memo it says this:____
The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to:____
• Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to the Domain Name____
System (DNS)____
o *ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the____*
*content that such services carry or provide.____*
*o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties____*
*(entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain____*
*names) *[Emphasis added]____
__ __
But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous discussion there is still no agreement on what that language should be, or even the scope of the limitation it is trying to describe (in fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that second point). So on that key subject no one can draft an intelligent and informed comment based upon the high level summary document to be released on 11/15, and must await the full text promised for 11/30 – yet Councilors are supposed to survey those they represent and begin consideration of a draft GNSO comment by December 5^th .____
__ __
_Let’s be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully informed public comments can be developed and submitted is presently only three weeks, from November 30^th to December 21^st ._For the Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to consider the approval of the CCWG-Accountability 3^rd CCWG Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 17^th , with the Council Statement being submitted one day later on December 18^th . Then Councillors are supposed to consider final documents and motions as early as two weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4^th ), if the Proposal has changed in any way from the third draft put out for comment -- notwithstanding the fact that both the Christmas and New Year holidays occur within that period. And, BTW, is it realistic to think that the CCWG will be able to review all the comments and draft responsive consensus amendments in the middle of those two weeks?____
__ __
So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that differs quite substantially from the prior member model, prepare thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments. ____
__ __
I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of the Accountability process as soon as possible. But I also have strong concerns that we are not providing sufficient time for review of a proposed structure that the community will have to live within for years, and likely decades.____
__ __
__ __
__ __
__ __
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*____
*Virtualaw LLC*____
*1155 F Street, NW*____
*Suite 1050*____
*Washington, DC 20004*____
*202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct*____
*202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax*____
*202-255-6172 <tel: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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Bernard Turcotte *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary____
__ __
All,____
__ __
Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow.____
__ __
Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock.____
__ __
Bernard Turcotte____
Staff Support____
__ __
for the co-chairs.____
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.____
_______________________________________________ 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 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
For the record – “While I recognise that it's a tight schedule, it may be good to recall that this was agreed upon in Dublin and infact circulated publicly so people are waiting in expectation.” – that is not accurate as regards a detailed timeline on which a feasibility judgment could be made. The CCWG+Timeline v1 that I and others received is dated 10/29, one week after the end of ICANN 54 Dublin. And the detailed timeline for GNSO (Council) consideration was not received by Councilors until four days ago, on Friday, November 6th, with this accompanying message from the acting Chair, “please find attached the updated proposed timeline for the CCWG Accountability path. Please review and provide feedback to allow us to assess whether the proposed timeline is realistic with regard to soliciting feedback and/or approval from your constituencies”. Upon reviewing it I immediately began raising concerns that it might not be “realistic” for my constituency. I do appreciate your willingness to consider a timeline extension. My personal view is that the public comment period deadline should be pushed back from the current date of December 21st to at least December 30th, to permit a minimum of 30 days public comment on the full and detailed 3rd draft CCWG proposal to be published on November 30th -- and that the Council and other Chartering Organizations should not be asked to consider the initial consideration and approval of the 3rd draft proposal, and adoption of a formal statement on it, until about two weeks after the comment period closes (January 13th ) so that they all have an opportunity to review what could again be a large volume of comments. Those adjustments would not necessarily affect the timing of a Chartering organization F2F in January, if it is deemed necessary. If the public comments indicate that further adjustments were required a final proposal could be agreed upon within the CCWG and considered by GNSO Council and the other Chartering Organizations by mid-February, with delivery of a final report to the Board in the third week of February – about one month later than the current projected date of January 22nd. I believe that modest increase in consideration time will be more than offset by the avoidance of potential landmines in an inadequately vetted Proposal. 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 Seun Ojedeji Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 12:01 PM To: Robin Gross Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary Someone have said what works within numbers may not necessarily be applicable in names, otherwise I would have said this is just a similar scenario of numbers last year. ;-) While I recognise that it's a tight schedule, it may be good to recall that this was agreed upon in Dublin and infact circulated publicly so people are waiting in expectation. It may be good to also remember that the CCWG output is the only major reason why I will say the work of the ICG is not considered complete (due to dependencies). There are external reasons why this process needs to move efficiently fast and those reasons are legitimate. Nevertheless, at this stage I am somewhat doubtful whether an accurate report can be released in 5days time. Perhaps the timeline be push by 1 to 2 weeks further. That said, it's important to note we ourselves are the ones introducing more issues (and reopening already closed issues) which ofcourse impacts on the available time. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 10 Nov 2015 17:35, "Robin Gross" <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I agree and maintain the objections I raised in Dublin when this timeline was proposed. It simply is backwards to have final public comment *before* the details of our report are made known - especially since we are making significant changes to what we had before and as we have heard a mission times "the devil is in the detail". The pressure to rush this through immediately cannot be allowed to eviscerate the important public consultations and bottom-up processes we allegedly claim to adhere to. Let's not undermine the legitimacy of this process in the rush to complete the work according to exterior timelines. WE set the timeline for the IANA transition, not the other way around. Robin On Nov 10, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Greg is right.
The Co-Chairs and ICANN itself seem to prefer 'FAST'.
On 11/10/2015 04:10 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
I share Phil's concerns (and, this time, even Eberhard's concerns).
This timeline doesn't work. I wish I'd picked up the issue earlier, but I'm already responding on so many different issues that I feel like an octopus. You have to let some through and hope that another octopus (or starfish) picks it up.
There are carts before horses all over the place. The timing of the public comment process and the SO/AC approval process doesn't work, and the interplay between the two is backwards. I think the set-up we have essentially invalidates the public comment process, both as a direct input to our work, and as an input to SO/AC approval. I've already heard people I respect say "don't worry about the public comment process, it's a waste of time; focus on the SO/AC approval process." But how does the SO/AC approval process work if the SO/AC members and constituent parts haven't been able to officially digest the Report, confer among themselves and with others and come up with positions, and attempt to resolve those positions during the time allowed?
I also agree that this is based on a series of Herculean and unworkable assumptions.
There's an old joke about the sign in the lawyer's office: GOOD, FAST, CHEAP -- PICK ANY TWO. We already know we're cheap (heck, we're free), so the choice boils down to two options: GOOD or FAST.
Greg
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>> wrote:
While others address the substance of this first full draft of the executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns about the timeline for public comments – including statements from and consideration by the Chartering Organizations.____
__ __
Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there had been any community discussion to extend the comment period, and this is the reply I made, with special emphasis on my role as a member of the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin consideration of draft GNSO comments regarding the 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th ---____
__ __
“I don’t know of any discussion yet to extend the comment period, but wouldn’t be all that surprised if there is one, given that this designator model is a major revision and deviation from the prior member model.____
__ __
Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline, especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent the BC. While the summary report (first draft of which I just forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15^th , the full and detailed draft proposal won’t be out until two weeks later, on November 30^th . I’ve been through enough legislative processes to know that staff-drafted summaries can never be relied upon to fully and accurately convey the language and potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in the underlying text, and that there is no substitute for its line-by-line dissection.____
__ __
November 30^th is only three weeks prior to the December 21^st deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form and submit a fully informed comment, especially for trade associations and other groups which must consider multiple inputs. *Even more worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the Council is supposed to “Share draft GNSO comment on 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal” on December 5^th , just five days after the full text is released. As I am supposed to represent your consensus views, it means the BC has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss the full text, and that Councilors must then attempt in the short remaining time to reconcile the separate views of those they represent into a single consensus draft GNSO comment. (I do note that the Council has almost two additional weeks to massage its comment, as the target for submission is December 18^th .)____*
*__ __*
This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its consensus views _prior to_ any opportunity to review all the public comments. This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council makes final determinations only _after_ it reviews all public comments. It also puts a large degree of pressure on those constituencies that Councilors represent to instruct us on their views long before the comment period has concluded.____
__ __
My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists for a reason. I’m not for undue delay, but I am for adequate scrutiny, and I am concerned that this timeline does not provide sufficient time for that. “____
__ __
_Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning’s CCWG call, just concluded. _____
__ __
Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to limit ICANN’s ability to “regulate” use of the Internet. On page 30 of the Summary memo it says this:____
The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to:____
• Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to the Domain Name____
System (DNS)____
o *ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the____*
*content that such services carry or provide.____*
*o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties____*
*(entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain____*
*names) *[Emphasis added]____
__ __
But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous discussion there is still no agreement on what that language should be, or even the scope of the limitation it is trying to describe (in fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that second point). So on that key subject no one can draft an intelligent and informed comment based upon the high level summary document to be released on 11/15, and must await the full text promised for 11/30 – yet Councilors are supposed to survey those they represent and begin consideration of a draft GNSO comment by December 5^th .____
__ __
_Let’s be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully informed public comments can be developed and submitted is presently only three weeks, from November 30^th to December 21^st ._For the Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to consider the approval of the CCWG-Accountability 3^rd CCWG Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 17^th , with the Council Statement being submitted one day later on December 18^th . Then Councillors are supposed to consider final documents and motions as early as two weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4^th ), if the Proposal has changed in any way from the third draft put out for comment -- notwithstanding the fact that both the Christmas and New Year holidays occur within that period. And, BTW, is it realistic to think that the CCWG will be able to review all the comments and draft responsive consensus amendments in the middle of those two weeks?____
__ __
So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that differs quite substantially from the prior member model, prepare thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments. ____
__ __
I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of the Accountability process as soon as possible. But I also have strong concerns that we are not providing sufficient time for review of a proposed structure that the community will have to live within for years, and likely decades.____
__ __
__ __
__ __
__ __
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*____
*Virtualaw LLC*____
*1155 F Street, NW*____
*Suite 1050*____
*Washington, DC 20004*____
*202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct*____
*202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax*____
*202-255-6172 <tel: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> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>] *On Behalf Of *Bernard Turcotte *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary____
__ __
All,____
__ __
Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow.____
__ __
Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock.____
__ __
Bernard Turcotte____
Staff Support____
__ __
for the co-chairs.____
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.____
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto: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
_______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Amen! While we should never let the perfect be the enemy of the good, we should also measure twice and cut once .... 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: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 1:42 PM To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>; Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary
ICG is not considered complete (due to dependencies). There are external reasons why this process needs to move efficiently fast and those reasons are legitimate.
'Maybe there are' and 'no, they are not', respectively. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Someone have said, what works for ALAC members, this week, might not work next week for the same ALAC members. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 10 Nov 2015, at 19:00, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Someone have said what works within numbers may not necessarily be applicable in names, otherwise I would have said this is just a similar scenario of numbers last year. ;-)
While I recognise that it's a tight schedule, it may be good to recall that this was agreed upon in Dublin and infact circulated publicly so people are waiting in expectation. It may be good to also remember that the CCWG output is the only major reason why I will say the work of the ICG is not considered complete (due to dependencies). There are external reasons why this process needs to move efficiently fast and those reasons are legitimate.
Nevertheless, at this stage I am somewhat doubtful whether an accurate report can be released in 5days time. Perhaps the timeline be push by 1 to 2 weeks further. That said, it's important to note we ourselves are the ones introducing more issues (and reopening already closed issues) which ofcourse impacts on the available time.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 10 Nov 2015 17:35, "Robin Gross" <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote: I agree and maintain the objections I raised in Dublin when this timeline was proposed. It simply is backwards to have final public comment *before* the details of our report are made known - especially since we are making significant changes to what we had before and as we have heard a mission times "the devil is in the detail".
The pressure to rush this through immediately cannot be allowed to eviscerate the important public consultations and bottom-up processes we allegedly claim to adhere to. Let's not undermine the legitimacy of this process in the rush to complete the work according to exterior timelines. WE set the timeline for the IANA transition, not the other way around.
Robin
On Nov 10, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Greg is right.
The Co-Chairs and ICANN itself seem to prefer 'FAST'.
On 11/10/2015 04:10 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
I share Phil's concerns (and, this time, even Eberhard's concerns).
This timeline doesn't work. I wish I'd picked up the issue earlier, but I'm already responding on so many different issues that I feel like an octopus. You have to let some through and hope that another octopus (or starfish) picks it up.
There are carts before horses all over the place. The timing of the public comment process and the SO/AC approval process doesn't work, and the interplay between the two is backwards. I think the set-up we have essentially invalidates the public comment process, both as a direct input to our work, and as an input to SO/AC approval. I've already heard people I respect say "don't worry about the public comment process, it's a waste of time; focus on the SO/AC approval process." But how does the SO/AC approval process work if the SO/AC members and constituent parts haven't been able to officially digest the Report, confer among themselves and with others and come up with positions, and attempt to resolve those positions during the time allowed?
I also agree that this is based on a series of Herculean and unworkable assumptions.
There's an old joke about the sign in the lawyer's office: GOOD, FAST, CHEAP -- PICK ANY TWO. We already know we're cheap (heck, we're free), so the choice boils down to two options: GOOD or FAST.
Greg
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
While others address the substance of this first full draft of the executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns about the timeline for public comments – including statements from and consideration by the Chartering Organizations.____
__ __
Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there had been any community discussion to extend the comment period, and this is the reply I made, with special emphasis on my role as a member of the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin consideration of draft GNSO comments regarding the 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th ---____
__ __
“I don’t know of any discussion yet to extend the comment period, but wouldn’t be all that surprised if there is one, given that this designator model is a major revision and deviation from the prior member model.____
__ __
Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline, especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent the BC. While the summary report (first draft of which I just forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15^th , the full and detailed draft proposal won’t be out until two weeks later, on November 30^th . I’ve been through enough legislative processes to know that staff-drafted summaries can never be relied upon to fully and accurately convey the language and potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in the underlying text, and that there is no substitute for its line-by-line dissection.____
__ __
November 30^th is only three weeks prior to the December 21^st deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form and submit a fully informed comment, especially for trade associations and other groups which must consider multiple inputs. *Even more worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the Council is supposed to “Share draft GNSO comment on 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal” on December 5^th , just five days after the full text is released. As I am supposed to represent your consensus views, it means the BC has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss the full text, and that Councilors must then attempt in the short remaining time to reconcile the separate views of those they represent into a single consensus draft GNSO comment. (I do note that the Council has almost two additional weeks to massage its comment, as the target for submission is December 18^th .)____*
*__ __*
This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its consensus views _prior to_ any opportunity to review all the public comments. This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council makes final determinations only _after_ it reviews all public comments. It also puts a large degree of pressure on those constituencies that Councilors represent to instruct us on their views long before the comment period has concluded.____
__ __
My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists for a reason. I’m not for undue delay, but I am for adequate scrutiny, and I am concerned that this timeline does not provide sufficient time for that. “____
__ __
_Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning’s CCWG call, just concluded. _____
__ __
Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to limit ICANN’s ability to “regulate” use of the Internet. On page 30 of the Summary memo it says this:____
The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to:____
• Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to the Domain Name____
System (DNS)____
o *ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the____*
*content that such services carry or provide.____*
*o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties____*
*(entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain____*
*names) *[Emphasis added]____
__ __
But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous discussion there is still no agreement on what that language should be, or even the scope of the limitation it is trying to describe (in fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that second point). So on that key subject no one can draft an intelligent and informed comment based upon the high level summary document to be released on 11/15, and must await the full text promised for 11/30 – yet Councilors are supposed to survey those they represent and begin consideration of a draft GNSO comment by December 5^th .____
__ __
_Let’s be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully informed public comments can be developed and submitted is presently only three weeks, from November 30^th to December 21^st ._For the Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to consider the approval of the CCWG-Accountability 3^rd CCWG Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 17^th , with the Council Statement being submitted one day later on December 18^th . Then Councillors are supposed to consider final documents and motions as early as two weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4^th ), if the Proposal has changed in any way from the third draft put out for comment -- notwithstanding the fact that both the Christmas and New Year holidays occur within that period. And, BTW, is it realistic to think that the CCWG will be able to review all the comments and draft responsive consensus amendments in the middle of those two weeks?____
__ __
So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that differs quite substantially from the prior member model, prepare thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments. ____
__ __
I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of the Accountability process as soon as possible. But I also have strong concerns that we are not providing sufficient time for review of a proposed structure that the community will have to live within for years, and likely decades.____
__ __
__ __
__ __
__ __
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*____
*Virtualaw LLC*____
*1155 F Street, NW*____
*Suite 1050*____
*Washington, DC 20004*____
*202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct*____
*202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax*____
*202-255-6172 <tel: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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Bernard Turcotte *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary____
__ __
All,____
__ __
Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow.____
__ __
Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock.____
__ __
Bernard Turcotte____
Staff Support____
__ __
for the co-chairs.____
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.____
_______________________________________________ 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 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <CCWGpotentialTimeline10272015.png>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 10 Nov 2015, at 19:00, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Someone have said what works within numbers may not necessarily be applicable in names, otherwise I would have said this is just a similar scenario of numbers last year. ;-)
While I recognise that it's a tight schedule, it may be good to recall that this was agreed upon in Dublin and infact circulated publicly so people are waiting in expectation. It may be good to also remember that the CCWG output is the only major reason why I will say the work of the ICG is not considered complete (due to dependencies). There are external reasons why this process needs to move efficiently fast and those reasons are legitimate.
Nevertheless, at this stage I am somewhat doubtful whether an accurate report can be released in 5days time. Perhaps the timeline be push by 1 to 2 weeks further. That said, it's important to note we ourselves are the ones introducing more issues (and reopening already closed issues) which ofcourse impacts on the available time.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 10 Nov 2015 17:35, "Robin Gross" <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote: I agree and maintain the objections I raised in Dublin when this timeline was proposed. It simply is backwards to have final public comment *before* the details of our report are made known - especially since we are making significant changes to what we had before and as we have heard a mission times "the devil is in the detail".
The pressure to rush this through immediately cannot be allowed to eviscerate the important public consultations and bottom-up processes we allegedly claim to adhere to. Let's not undermine the legitimacy of this process in the rush to complete the work according to exterior timelines. WE set the timeline for the IANA transition, not the other way around.
Robin
On Nov 10, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Greg is right.
The Co-Chairs and ICANN itself seem to prefer 'FAST'.
On 11/10/2015 04:10 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
I share Phil's concerns (and, this time, even Eberhard's concerns).
This timeline doesn't work. I wish I'd picked up the issue earlier, but I'm already responding on so many different issues that I feel like an octopus. You have to let some through and hope that another octopus (or starfish) picks it up.
There are carts before horses all over the place. The timing of the public comment process and the SO/AC approval process doesn't work, and the interplay between the two is backwards. I think the set-up we have essentially invalidates the public comment process, both as a direct input to our work, and as an input to SO/AC approval. I've already heard people I respect say "don't worry about the public comment process, it's a waste of time; focus on the SO/AC approval process." But how does the SO/AC approval process work if the SO/AC members and constituent parts haven't been able to officially digest the Report, confer among themselves and with others and come up with positions, and attempt to resolve those positions during the time allowed?
I also agree that this is based on a series of Herculean and unworkable assumptions.
There's an old joke about the sign in the lawyer's office: GOOD, FAST, CHEAP -- PICK ANY TWO. We already know we're cheap (heck, we're free), so the choice boils down to two options: GOOD or FAST.
Greg
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
While others address the substance of this first full draft of the executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns about the timeline for public comments – including statements from and consideration by the Chartering Organizations.____
__ __
Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there had been any community discussion to extend the comment period, and this is the reply I made, with special emphasis on my role as a member of the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin consideration of draft GNSO comments regarding the 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th ---____
__ __
“I don’t know of any discussion yet to extend the comment period, but wouldn’t be all that surprised if there is one, given that this designator model is a major revision and deviation from the prior member model.____
__ __
Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline, especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent the BC. While the summary report (first draft of which I just forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15^th , the full and detailed draft proposal won’t be out until two weeks later, on November 30^th . I’ve been through enough legislative processes to know that staff-drafted summaries can never be relied upon to fully and accurately convey the language and potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in the underlying text, and that there is no substitute for its line-by-line dissection.____
__ __
November 30^th is only three weeks prior to the December 21^st deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form and submit a fully informed comment, especially for trade associations and other groups which must consider multiple inputs. *Even more worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the Council is supposed to “Share draft GNSO comment on 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal” on December 5^th , just five days after the full text is released. As I am supposed to represent your consensus views, it means the BC has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss the full text, and that Councilors must then attempt in the short remaining time to reconcile the separate views of those they represent into a single consensus draft GNSO comment. (I do note that the Council has almost two additional weeks to massage its comment, as the target for submission is December 18^th .)____*
*__ __*
This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its consensus views _prior to_ any opportunity to review all the public comments. This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council makes final determinations only _after_ it reviews all public comments. It also puts a large degree of pressure on those constituencies that Councilors represent to instruct us on their views long before the comment period has concluded.____
__ __
My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists for a reason. I’m not for undue delay, but I am for adequate scrutiny, and I am concerned that this timeline does not provide sufficient time for that. “____
__ __
_Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning’s CCWG call, just concluded. _____
__ __
Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to limit ICANN’s ability to “regulate” use of the Internet. On page 30 of the Summary memo it says this:____
The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to:____
• Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to the Domain Name____
System (DNS)____
o *ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the____*
*content that such services carry or provide.____*
*o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties____*
*(entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain____*
*names) *[Emphasis added]____
__ __
But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous discussion there is still no agreement on what that language should be, or even the scope of the limitation it is trying to describe (in fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that second point). So on that key subject no one can draft an intelligent and informed comment based upon the high level summary document to be released on 11/15, and must await the full text promised for 11/30 – yet Councilors are supposed to survey those they represent and begin consideration of a draft GNSO comment by December 5^th .____
__ __
_Let’s be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully informed public comments can be developed and submitted is presently only three weeks, from November 30^th to December 21^st ._For the Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to consider the approval of the CCWG-Accountability 3^rd CCWG Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3^rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 17^th , with the Council Statement being submitted one day later on December 18^th . Then Councillors are supposed to consider final documents and motions as early as two weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4^th ), if the Proposal has changed in any way from the third draft put out for comment -- notwithstanding the fact that both the Christmas and New Year holidays occur within that period. And, BTW, is it realistic to think that the CCWG will be able to review all the comments and draft responsive consensus amendments in the middle of those two weeks?____
__ __
So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that differs quite substantially from the prior member model, prepare thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments. ____
__ __
I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of the Accountability process as soon as possible. But I also have strong concerns that we are not providing sufficient time for review of a proposed structure that the community will have to live within for years, and likely decades.____
__ __
__ __
__ __
__ __
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*____
*Virtualaw LLC*____
*1155 F Street, NW*____
*Suite 1050*____
*Washington, DC 20004*____
*202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct*____
*202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax*____
*202-255-6172 <tel: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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Bernard Turcotte *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary____
__ __
All,____
__ __
Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow.____
__ __
Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock.____
__ __
Bernard Turcotte____
Staff Support____
__ __
for the co-chairs.____
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.____
_______________________________________________ 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 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <CCWGpotentialTimeline10272015.png>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co-Chairs, Never let the truth stand in the way of this week's ALAC position. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 10 Nov 2015, at 19:00, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
While I recognise that it's a tight schedule, it may be good to recall that this was agreed upon in Dublin and infact circulated publicly so people are waiting in expectation.
[...]
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 04:15:14PM +0000, Nigel Roberts wrote:
The Co-Chairs and ICANN itself seem to prefer 'FAST'.
To be fair, the three IANA operational communities also have some stake in this work concluding. The argument in Dublin was that the very aggressive timeline was only a positive-path scenario, and that if anything went wrong then the whole package, including the transition, looked to be in trouble. That was the basis on which I observed that, while this sort of positive-path planning is never the best answer, sometimes you have to do it. It was clear, for instance, that if the public comment came back with substantive changes needed that were not reflected in what the chartering organizations had approved, the whole plan fell apart. That's a risk the community has to take to try to make the IANA transition happen, I think. A year ago, the RIRs and the IETF spent lots of time at inconvenient points of the calendar in order to get their proposals ready in time for the then-deadline. They did it. What I saw in Dublin was inspiring: the CCWG was pulling together to achieve a similar victory, despite the long odds. This is certainly a hard thing to do, but I'm super heartened with the way different expressions of multi-stakeholder processes work out (though messy in process) in the end. If I can help at all, I'm here to try to do so; but in the meantime, I hope we can agree that the situation is not hopeless. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
I agree with Andrew, putting on the CRISP Chair hat. It's not only the CCWG Chairs and the ICANN Board but there are wider community waiting, including the numbers community. I completely understand the challenges, being through this process as a CCWG member myself, and I think the progress we have made during Dublin and since then has been amazing, despite the challenges we have had. At the same, as you may be aware, there had been strong concerns raised within some members of the CRISP Team during the Dublin Meeting. By the end of the Dublin meeting, while Jan 2016 wasn't as early as we would have hoped for, we recognised the CCWG has made great progress, we wanted to be respectful of the efforts and the progress. In fact, I had just re-emphasied it at the latest CRISP call. I hope we can keep this good work and on a pragmatic note - Being one of the SOs, the ASO needs to go through the approval process and I agree it's important the proposal gets approved, addressing major comments within SOs and ACs. In addressing this efficiently, the CCWG liaisons from ASO regularly update and summarize key issues online (in addition to update at the calls), seek for feedback within ASO and coordinate our opinion, so that major concerns from ASO are fed back to the CCWG discussions, not just an individual opinion of the ASO CCWG members in developing the proposal - this should help us to be as ready possible to approve the final proposal smoothly. For the public comment, I like the idea shared by Steve DelBianco in Dublin. We can encourage individuals and organisations to be in sync/express comments through their SOs and ACs as much as where applicable, so we an efficiently review the public comments. Of course that shouldn't stop an organisation or an individual from expressing opinion different from SOs and ACs if needed, but it's something to keep in mind and can be done on best effort basis. I think there are ways we can accommodate comments as described and I really would like to keep the good pace of our progress, and a balance of addressing key concerns but also moving forward. Izumi On 2015/11/11 3:56, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 04:15:14PM +0000, Nigel Roberts wrote:
The Co-Chairs and ICANN itself seem to prefer 'FAST'.
To be fair, the three IANA operational communities also have some stake in this work concluding. The argument in Dublin was that the very aggressive timeline was only a positive-path scenario, and that if anything went wrong then the whole package, including the transition, looked to be in trouble. That was the basis on which I observed that, while this sort of positive-path planning is never the best answer, sometimes you have to do it. It was clear, for instance, that if the public comment came back with substantive changes needed that were not reflected in what the chartering organizations had approved, the whole plan fell apart.
That's a risk the community has to take to try to make the IANA transition happen, I think. A year ago, the RIRs and the IETF spent lots of time at inconvenient points of the calendar in order to get their proposals ready in time for the then-deadline. They did it. What I saw in Dublin was inspiring: the CCWG was pulling together to achieve a similar victory, despite the long odds. This is certainly a hard thing to do, but I'm super heartened with the way different expressions of multi-stakeholder processes work out (though messy in process) in the end. If I can help at all, I'm here to try to do so; but in the meantime, I hope we can agree that the situation is not hopeless.
Best regards,
A
Thank you Izumi and Andrew. I support your position. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On November 11, 2015 8:15:19 AM GMT-03:00, Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp> wrote:
I agree with Andrew, putting on the CRISP Chair hat. It's not only the CCWG Chairs and the ICANN Board but there are wider community waiting, including the numbers community.
I completely understand the challenges, being through this process as a CCWG member myself, and I think the progress we have made during Dublin and since then has been amazing, despite the challenges we have had.
At the same, as you may be aware, there had been strong concerns raised within some members of the CRISP Team during the Dublin Meeting. By the end of the Dublin meeting, while Jan 2016 wasn't as early as we would have hoped for, we recognised the CCWG has made great progress, we wanted to be respectful of the efforts and the progress. In fact, I had just re-emphasied it at the latest CRISP call.
I hope we can keep this good work and on a pragmatic note - Being one of the SOs, the ASO needs to go through the approval process and I agree it's important the proposal gets approved, addressing major comments within SOs and ACs.
In addressing this efficiently, the CCWG liaisons from ASO regularly update and summarize key issues online (in addition to update at the calls), seek for feedback within ASO and coordinate our opinion, so that major concerns from ASO are fed back to the CCWG discussions, not just an individual opinion of the ASO CCWG members in developing the proposal - this should help us to be as ready possible to approve the final proposal smoothly.
For the public comment, I like the idea shared by Steve DelBianco in Dublin.
We can encourage individuals and organisations to be in sync/express comments through their SOs and ACs as much as where applicable, so we an efficiently review the public comments. Of course that shouldn't stop an organisation or an individual from expressing opinion different from SOs and ACs if needed, but it's something to keep in mind and can be done on best effort basis.
I think there are ways we can accommodate comments as described and I really would like to keep the good pace of our progress, and a balance of addressing key concerns but also moving forward.
Izumi
On 2015/11/11 3:56, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 04:15:14PM +0000, Nigel Roberts wrote:
The Co-Chairs and ICANN itself seem to prefer 'FAST'.
To be fair, the three IANA operational communities also have some stake in this work concluding. The argument in Dublin was that the very aggressive timeline was only a positive-path scenario, and that if anything went wrong then the whole package, including the transition, looked to be in trouble. That was the basis on which I observed that, while this sort of positive-path planning is never the best answer, sometimes you have to do it. It was clear, for instance, that if the public comment came back with substantive changes needed that were not reflected in what the chartering organizations had approved, the whole plan fell apart.
That's a risk the community has to take to try to make the IANA transition happen, I think. A year ago, the RIRs and the IETF spent lots of time at inconvenient points of the calendar in order to get their proposals ready in time for the then-deadline. They did it. What I saw in Dublin was inspiring: the CCWG was pulling together to achieve a similar victory, despite the long odds. This is certainly a hard thing to do, but I'm super heartened with the way different expressions of multi-stakeholder processes work out (though messy in process) in the end. If I can help at all, I'm here to try to do so; but in the meantime, I hope we can agree that the situation is not hopeless.
Best regards,
A
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Right now it’s looking like fast and free (at least free for the work of CCWG members and participants). But that doesn’t necessarily mean cheap. Rushing the vetting process could prove very expensive down the line if the proposal gets mired down in multiple controversies on inadequately vetted final text language. · Defined ICANN Mission and clear guards against mission creep · human rights · GAC “consensus” (ST 18) and GAC voting role within the community powers · voting and objection levels relevant to the exercise of community powers (including whether to allow split voting) · inspection rights and other transparency matters · binding commitment to a CCWG WS 2 process Each of the above issues as well as others I have probably neglected to mention has the potential to cause inordinate delay, or even accountability mission failure, if final Proposal text language is not adequately developed and then vetted within a timeframe allowing for sufficient review. 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: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 11:11 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Bernard Turcotte; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary I share Phil's concerns (and, this time, even Eberhard's concerns). This timeline doesn't work. I wish I'd picked up the issue earlier, but I'm already responding on so many different issues that I feel like an octopus. You have to let some through and hope that another octopus (or starfish) picks it up. There are carts before horses all over the place. The timing of the public comment process and the SO/AC approval process doesn't work, and the interplay between the two is backwards. I think the set-up we have essentially invalidates the public comment process, both as a direct input to our work, and as an input to SO/AC approval. I've already heard people I respect say "don't worry about the public comment process, it's a waste of time; focus on the SO/AC approval process." But how does the SO/AC approval process work if the SO/AC members and constituent parts haven't been able to officially digest the Report, confer among themselves and with others and come up with positions, and attempt to resolve those positions during the time allowed? I also agree that this is based on a series of Herculean and unworkable assumptions. There's an old joke about the sign in the lawyer's office: GOOD, FAST, CHEAP -- PICK ANY TWO. We already know we're cheap (heck, we're free), so the choice boils down to two options: GOOD or FAST. Greg On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: While others address the substance of this first full draft of the executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns about the timeline for public comments – including statements from and consideration by the Chartering Organizations. Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there had been any community discussion to extend the comment period, and this is the reply I made, with special emphasis on my role as a member of the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin consideration of draft GNSO comments regarding the 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th --- “I don’t know of any discussion yet to extend the comment period, but wouldn’t be all that surprised if there is one, given that this designator model is a major revision and deviation from the prior member model. Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline, especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent the BC. While the summary report (first draft of which I just forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15th, the full and detailed draft proposal won’t be out until two weeks later, on November 30th. I’ve been through enough legislative processes to know that staff-drafted summaries can never be relied upon to fully and accurately convey the language and potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in the underlying text, and that there is no substitute for its line-by-line dissection. November 30th is only three weeks prior to the December 21st deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form and submit a fully informed comment, especially for trade associations and other groups which must consider multiple inputs. Even more worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the Council is supposed to “Share draft GNSO comment on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal” on December 5th, just five days after the full text is released. As I am supposed to represent your consensus views, it means the BC has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss the full text, and that Councilors must then attempt in the short remaining time to reconcile the separate views of those they represent into a single consensus draft GNSO comment. (I do note that the Council has almost two additional weeks to massage its comment, as the target for submission is December 18th.) This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its consensus views prior to any opportunity to review all the public comments. This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council makes final determinations only after it reviews all public comments. It also puts a large degree of pressure on those constituencies that Councilors represent to instruct us on their views long before the comment period has concluded. My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists for a reason. I’m not for undue delay, but I am for adequate scrutiny, and I am concerned that this timeline does not provide sufficient time for that. “ Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning’s CCWG call, just concluded. Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to limit ICANN’s ability to “regulate” use of the Internet. On page 30 of the Summary memo it says this: The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to: • Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to the Domain Name System (DNS) o ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties (entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain names) [Emphasis added] But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous discussion there is still no agreement on what that language should be, or even the scope of the limitation it is trying to describe (in fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that second point). So on that key subject no one can draft an intelligent and informed comment based upon the high level summary document to be released on 11/15, and must await the full text promised for 11/30 – yet Councilors are supposed to survey those they represent and begin consideration of a draft GNSO comment by December 5th. Let’s be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully informed public comments can be developed and submitted is presently only three weeks, from November 30th to December 21st. For the Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to consider the approval of the CCWG-Accountability 3rd CCWG Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 17th, with the Council Statement being submitted one day later on December 18th. Then Councillors are supposed to consider final documents and motions as early as two weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4th), if the Proposal has changed in any way from the third draft put out for comment -- notwithstanding the fact that both the Christmas and New Year holidays occur within that period. And, BTW, is it realistic to think that the CCWG will be able to review all the comments and draft responsive consensus amendments in the middle of those two weeks? So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that differs quite substantially from the prior member model, prepare thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments. I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of the Accountability process as soon as possible. But I also have strong concerns that we are not providing sufficient time for review of a proposed structure that the community will have to live within for years, and likely decades. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel: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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary All, Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow. Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock. Bernard Turcotte Staff Support for the co-chairs. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Agree ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 11:30 AM To: Greg Shatan Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary Right now it’s looking like fast and free (at least free for the work of CCWG members and participants). But that doesn’t necessarily mean cheap. Rushing the vetting process could prove very expensive down the line if the proposal gets mired down in multiple controversies on inadequately vetted final text language. · Defined ICANN Mission and clear guards against mission creep · human rights · GAC “consensus” (ST 18) and GAC voting role within the community powers · voting and objection levels relevant to the exercise of community powers (including whether to allow split voting) · inspection rights and other transparency matters · binding commitment to a CCWG WS 2 process Each of the above issues as well as others I have probably neglected to mention has the potential to cause inordinate delay, or even accountability mission failure, if final Proposal text language is not adequately developed and then vetted within a timeframe allowing for sufficient review. 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: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 11:11 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Bernard Turcotte; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary I share Phil's concerns (and, this time, even Eberhard's concerns). This timeline doesn't work. I wish I'd picked up the issue earlier, but I'm already responding on so many different issues that I feel like an octopus. You have to let some through and hope that another octopus (or starfish) picks it up. There are carts before horses all over the place. The timing of the public comment process and the SO/AC approval process doesn't work, and the interplay between the two is backwards. I think the set-up we have essentially invalidates the public comment process, both as a direct input to our work, and as an input to SO/AC approval. I've already heard people I respect say "don't worry about the public comment process, it's a waste of time; focus on the SO/AC approval process." But how does the SO/AC approval process work if the SO/AC members and constituent parts haven't been able to officially digest the Report, confer among themselves and with others and come up with positions, and attempt to resolve those positions during the time allowed? I also agree that this is based on a series of Herculean and unworkable assumptions. There's an old joke about the sign in the lawyer's office: GOOD, FAST, CHEAP -- PICK ANY TWO. We already know we're cheap (heck, we're free), so the choice boils down to two options: GOOD or FAST. Greg On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: While others address the substance of this first full draft of the executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns about the timeline for public comments – including statements from and consideration by the Chartering Organizations. Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there had been any community discussion to extend the comment period, and this is the reply I made, with special emphasis on my role as a member of the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin consideration of draft GNSO comments regarding the 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th --- “I don’t know of any discussion yet to extend the comment period, but wouldn’t be all that surprised if there is one, given that this designator model is a major revision and deviation from the prior member model. Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline, especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent the BC. While the summary report (first draft of which I just forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15th, the full and detailed draft proposal won’t be out until two weeks later, on November 30th. I’ve been through enough legislative processes to know that staff-drafted summaries can never be relied upon to fully and accurately convey the language and potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in the underlying text, and that there is no substitute for its line-by-line dissection. November 30th is only three weeks prior to the December 21st deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form and submit a fully informed comment, especially for trade associations and other groups which must consider multiple inputs. Even more worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the Council is supposed to “Share draft GNSO comment on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal” on December 5th, just five days after the full text is released. As I am supposed to represent your consensus views, it means the BC has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss the full text, and that Councilors must then attempt in the short remaining time to reconcile the separate views of those they represent into a single consensus draft GNSO comment. (I do note that the Council has almost two additional weeks to massage its comment, as the target for submission is December 18th.) This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its consensus views prior to any opportunity to review all the public comments. This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council makes final determinations only after it reviews all public comments. It also puts a large degree of pressure on those constituencies that Councilors represent to instruct us on their views long before the comment period has concluded. My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists for a reason. I’m not for undue delay, but I am for adequate scrutiny, and I am concerned that this timeline does not provide sufficient time for that. “ Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning’s CCWG call, just concluded. Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to limit ICANN’s ability to “regulate” use of the Internet. On page 30 of the Summary memo it says this: The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to: • Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to the Domain Name System (DNS) o ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties (entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain names) [Emphasis added] But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous discussion there is still no agreement on what that language should be, or even the scope of the limitation it is trying to describe (in fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that second point). So on that key subject no one can draft an intelligent and informed comment based upon the high level summary document to be released on 11/15, and must await the full text promised for 11/30 – yet Councilors are supposed to survey those they represent and begin consideration of a draft GNSO comment by December 5th. Let’s be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully informed public comments can be developed and submitted is presently only three weeks, from November 30th to December 21st. For the Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to consider the approval of the CCWG-Accountability 3rd CCWG Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 17th, with the Council Statement being submitted one day later on December 18th. Then Councillors are supposed to consider final documents and motions as early as two weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4th), if the Proposal has changed in any way from the third draft put out for comment -- notwithstanding the fact that both the Christmas and New Year holidays occur within that period. And, BTW, is it realistic to think that the CCWG will be able to review all the comments and draft responsive consensus amendments in the middle of those two weeks? So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that differs quite substantially from the prior member model, prepare thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments. I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of the Accountability process as soon as possible. But I also have strong concerns that we are not providing sufficient time for review of a proposed structure that the community will have to live within for years, and likely decades. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel: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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary All, Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow. Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock. Bernard Turcotte Staff Support for the co-chairs. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Thanks Greg, all. Agree and share the same concerns. Matthew On Tuesday, 10 November 2015, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I share Phil's concerns (and, this time, even Eberhard's concerns).
This timeline doesn't work. I wish I'd picked up the issue earlier, but I'm already responding on so many different issues that I feel like an octopus. You have to let some through and hope that another octopus (or starfish) picks it up.
There are carts before horses all over the place. The timing of the public comment process and the SO/AC approval process doesn't work, and the interplay between the two is backwards. I think the set-up we have essentially invalidates the public comment process, both as a direct input to our work, and as an input to SO/AC approval. I've already heard people I respect say "don't worry about the public comment process, it's a waste of time; focus on the SO/AC approval process." But how does the SO/AC approval process work if the SO/AC members and constituent parts haven't been able to officially digest the Report, confer among themselves and with others and come up with positions, and attempt to resolve those positions during the time allowed?
I also agree that this is based on a series of Herculean and unworkable assumptions.
There's an old joke about the sign in the lawyer's office: GOOD, FAST, CHEAP -- PICK ANY TWO. We already know we're cheap (heck, we're free), so the choice boils down to two options: GOOD or FAST.
Greg
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','psc@vlaw-dc.com');>> wrote:
While others address the substance of this first full draft of the executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns about the timeline for public comments – including statements from and consideration by the Chartering Organizations.
Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there had been any community discussion to extend the comment period, and this is the reply I made, with special emphasis on my role as a member of the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin consideration of draft GNSO comments regarding the 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th ---
“I don’t know of any discussion yet to extend the comment period, but wouldn’t be all that surprised if there is one, given that this designator model is a major revision and deviation from the prior member model.
Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline, especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent the BC. While the summary report (first draft of which I just forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15th, the full and detailed draft proposal won’t be out until two weeks later, on November 30th. I’ve been through enough legislative processes to know that staff-drafted summaries can never be relied upon to fully and accurately convey the language and potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in the underlying text, and that there is no substitute for its line-by-line dissection.
November 30th is only three weeks prior to the December 21st deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form and submit a fully informed comment, especially for trade associations and other groups which must consider multiple inputs. *Even more worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the Council is supposed to “Share draft GNSO comment on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal” on December 5th, just five days after the full text is released. As I am supposed to represent your consensus views, it means the BC has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss the full text, and that Councilors must then attempt in the short remaining time to reconcile the separate views of those they represent into a single consensus draft GNSO comment. (I do note that the Council has almost two additional weeks to massage its comment, as the target for submission is December 18th.)*
This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its consensus views *prior to* any opportunity to review all the public comments. This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council makes final determinations only *after* it reviews all public comments. It also puts a large degree of pressure on those constituencies that Councilors represent to instruct us on their views long before the comment period has concluded.
My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists for a reason. I’m not for undue delay, but I am for adequate scrutiny, and I am concerned that this timeline does not provide sufficient time for that. “
*Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning’s CCWG call, just concluded. *
Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to limit ICANN’s ability to “regulate” use of the Internet. On page 30 of the Summary memo it says this:
The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to:
• Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to the Domain Name
System (DNS)
o *ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the*
*content that such services carry or provide.*
*o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties*
*(entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain*
*names) *[Emphasis added]
But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous discussion there is still no agreement on what that language should be, or even the scope of the limitation it is trying to describe (in fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that second point). So on that key subject no one can draft an intelligent and informed comment based upon the high level summary document to be released on 11/15, and must await the full text promised for 11/30 – yet Councilors are supposed to survey those they represent and begin consideration of a draft GNSO comment by December 5th .
*Let’s be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully informed public comments can be developed and submitted is presently only three weeks, from November 30th to December 21st.* For the Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to consider the approval of the CCWG-Accountability 3rd CCWG Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 17th, with the Council Statement being submitted one day later on December 18th. Then Councillors are supposed to consider final documents and motions as early as two weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4th), if the Proposal has changed in any way from the third draft put out for comment -- notwithstanding the fact that both the Christmas and New Year holidays occur within that period. And, BTW, is it realistic to think that the CCWG will be able to review all the comments and draft responsive consensus amendments in the middle of those two weeks?
So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that differs quite substantially from the prior member model, prepare thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments.
I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of the Accountability process as soon as possible. But I also have strong concerns that we are not providing sufficient time for review of a proposed structure that the community will have to live within for years, and likely decades.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org');>] *On Behalf Of *Bernard Turcotte *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary
All,
Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow.
Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock.
Bernard Turcotte
Staff Support
for the co-chairs. ------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Phil, thank you for your message below. You specifically comment on the plans for the next GNSO Council meetings. Let me clarify that the suggestions for the GNSO Council’s handling of the CCWG recommendations are based on a best case scenario in which the Council is in a position to consider or even approve the recommendations during its December meeting. If that is not possible, the time line presented in Dublin allows for adoption of the recommendations in January and the proposed time line would still be met. Hence, it is up to the GNSO Council whether it wishes to take any action during its December meeting or not. Thomas
Am 10.11.2015 um 15:22 schrieb Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>:
While others address the substance of this first full draft of the executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns about the timeline for public comments – including statements from and consideration by the Chartering Organizations.
Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there had been any community discussion to extend the comment period, and this is the reply I made, with special emphasis on my role as a member of the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin consideration of draft GNSO comments regarding the 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th ---
“I don’t know of any discussion yet to extend the comment period, but wouldn’t be all that surprised if there is one, given that this designator model is a major revision and deviation from the prior member model.
Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline, especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent the BC. While the summary report (first draft of which I just forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15th, the full and detailed draft proposal won’t be out until two weeks later, on November 30th. I’ve been through enough legislative processes to know that staff-drafted summaries can never be relied upon to fully and accurately convey the language and potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in the underlying text, and that there is no substitute for its line-by-line dissection.
November 30th is only three weeks prior to the December 21st deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form and submit a fully informed comment, especially for trade associations and other groups which must consider multiple inputs. Even more worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the Council is supposed to “Share draft GNSO comment on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal” on December 5th, just five days after the full text is released. As I am supposed to represent your consensus views, it means the BC has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss the full text, and that Councilors must then attempt in the short remaining time to reconcile the separate views of those they represent into a single consensus draft GNSO comment. (I do note that the Council has almost two additional weeks to massage its comment, as the target for submission is December 18th.)
This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its consensus views prior to any opportunity to review all the public comments. This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council makes final determinations only after it reviews all public comments. It also puts a large degree of pressure on those constituencies that Councilors represent to instruct us on their views long before the comment period has concluded.
My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists for a reason. I’m not for undue delay, but I am for adequate scrutiny, and I am concerned that this timeline does not provide sufficient time for that. “
Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning’s CCWG call, just concluded.
Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to limit ICANN’s ability to “regulate” use of the Internet. On page 30 of the Summary memo it says this: The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to: • Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to the Domain Name System (DNS) o ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties (entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain names) [Emphasis added]
But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous discussion there is still no agreement on what that language should be, or even the scope of the limitation it is trying to describe (in fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that second point). So on that key subject no one can draft an intelligent and informed comment based upon the high level summary document to be released on 11/15, and must await the full text promised for 11/30 – yet Councilors are supposed to survey those they represent and begin consideration of a draft GNSO comment by December 5th.
Let’s be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully informed public comments can be developed and submitted is presently only three weeks, from November 30th to December 21st. For the Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to consider the approval of the CCWG-Accountability 3rd CCWG Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 17th, with the Council Statement being submitted one day later on December 18th. Then Councillors are supposed to consider final documents and motions as early as two weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4th), if the Proposal has changed in any way from the third draft put out for comment -- notwithstanding the fact that both the Christmas and New Year holidays occur within that period. And, BTW, is it realistic to think that the CCWG will be able to review all the comments and draft responsive consensus amendments in the middle of those two weeks?
So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that differs quite substantially from the prior member model, prepare thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments.
I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of the Accountability process as soon as possible. But I also have strong concerns that we are not providing sufficient time for review of a proposed structure that the community will have to live within for years, and likely decades.
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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary
All,
Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow.
Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock.
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support
for the co-chairs. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
I note the lack of substantive response. el On 2015-11-11 15:16, Thomas Rickert wrote:
Phil, thank you for your message below.
You specifically comment on the plans for the next GNSO Council meetings. Let me clarify that the suggestions for the GNSO Council’s handling of the CCWG recommendations are based on a best case scenario in which the Council is in a position to consider or even approve the recommendations during its December meeting. If that is not possible, the time line presented in Dublin allows for adoption of the recommendations in January and the proposed time line would still be met. Hence, it is up to the GNSO Council whether it wishes to take any action during its December meeting or not.
Thomas [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Thanks for your message, Thomas. As I think you are aware, none of the timeline concerns I have expressed are in any way a criticism of the work of the CCWG members and participants, who have been performing heroically under difficult pressures. I have no idea what the positions of other Councilors shall be, but in my view it is not realistic to think the Council will be in a position to take a consensus position on the 3rd draft proposal at its December 5th meeting because that is just five days after the scheduled release of the actual, detailed language of the proposal. I am skeptical that the members of the BC, which I represent on Council, will be able to fully comprehend all its nuances and have all their questions and concerns addressed in that short time, and until they have formed an informed position I will be constrained in my ability to contribute to a Council stance. Now that the initial draft of the Executive Summary has been released it is even more clear that it cannot be relied upon as the basis for a positional decision by Council, as the initial draft was redundant, incomplete, and unclear. Even if those deficiencies are substantially cured between now and its scheduled November 15th release date (just four days away), it seems inarguable that it will not be fully reliable in that it will be the summary of a proposal of which key components will likely still remain unresolved as of November 15th – including some of the most important issues for the BC, such as ST 18 and the overall role of the GAC in the post-transition environment, as well as ICANN Mission language which acceptably threads the needle between contract enforcement and impermissible forms of “regulation”. In my personal opinion the release of the Executive Summary should be delayed and made simultaneous with the release of the final draft Proposal to assure that it accurately describes that draft. As I commented in a post earlier this morning, “I have reviewed many Executive Summaries over the years, and have seem a wide range of accuracy, comprehensiveness and clarity among them. But never in my life can I recall seeing an Executive Summary published when the underlying document it purported to summarize did not yet exist in final form. This an amazing new concept, though one of questionable legitimacy and usefulness.” Finally, as to when the Council might responsibly and with adequate information take a position on the third draft Proposal, its January meeting seems like a more appropriate venue, especially if held on January 21st rather than the 14th (noting that the current CCWG timeline calls for a Chartering organization F2F sometime between January 7th and 22nd, but that this could change if the comment period deadlines are adjusted). In regard to the comment deadlines, I made this suggestion in a separate email yesterday which I again put out for consideration by the CCWG and ICANN: “My personal view is that the public comment period deadline should be pushed back from the current date of December 21st to at least December 30th, to permit a minimum of 30 days public comment on the full and detailed 3rd draft CCWG proposal to be published on November 30th -- and that the Council and other Chartering Organizations should not be asked to consider the initial consideration and approval of the 3rd draft proposal, and adoption of a formal statement on it, until about two weeks after the comment period closes (January 13th ) so that they all have an opportunity to review what could again be a large volume of comments. Those adjustments would not necessarily affect the timing of a Chartering organization F2F in January, if it is deemed necessary. If the public comments indicate that further adjustments were required a final proposal could be agreed upon within the CCWG and considered by GNSO Council and the other Chartering Organizations by mid-February, with delivery of a final report to the Board in the third week of February – about one month later than the current projected date of January 22nd. I believe that modest increase in consideration time will be more than offset by the avoidance of potential landmines in an inadequately vetted Proposal.” As can be seen, my proposal for a comment deadline adjustment would result in no more than one months’ delay in delivery of a final Proposal to the Board, which I do not see as inordinate given the profound importance of getting right a Proposal that we will all have to live with for many years going forward. Also, to reiterate, I believe that the current deadline schedule, by requiring comments to be filed in an inordinately hasty and inadequately informed manner, risks far greater delay because it is more likely to let matters slip through that later prove to be substantial impediments to CCWG mission completion. With 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 From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 8:17 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Bernard Turcotte; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary Phil, thank you for your message below. You specifically comment on the plans for the next GNSO Council meetings. Let me clarify that the suggestions for the GNSO Council’s handling of the CCWG recommendations are based on a best case scenario in which the Council is in a position to consider or even approve the recommendations during its December meeting. If that is not possible, the time line presented in Dublin allows for adoption of the recommendations in January and the proposed time line would still be met. Hence, it is up to the GNSO Council whether it wishes to take any action during its December meeting or not. Thomas Am 10.11.2015 um 15:22 schrieb Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>: While others address the substance of this first full draft of the executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns about the timeline for public comments – including statements from and consideration by the Chartering Organizations. Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there had been any community discussion to extend the comment period, and this is the reply I made, with special emphasis on my role as a member of the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin consideration of draft GNSO comments regarding the 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th --- “I don’t know of any discussion yet to extend the comment period, but wouldn’t be all that surprised if there is one, given that this designator model is a major revision and deviation from the prior member model. Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline, especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent the BC. While the summary report (first draft of which I just forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15th, the full and detailed draft proposal won’t be out until two weeks later, on November 30th. I’ve been through enough legislative processes to know that staff-drafted summaries can never be relied upon to fully and accurately convey the language and potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in the underlying text, and that there is no substitute for its line-by-line dissection. November 30th is only three weeks prior to the December 21st deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form and submit a fully informed comment, especially for trade associations and other groups which must consider multiple inputs. Even more worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the Council is supposed to “Share draft GNSO comment on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal” on December 5th, just five days after the full text is released. As I am supposed to represent your consensus views, it means the BC has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss the full text, and that Councilors must then attempt in the short remaining time to reconcile the separate views of those they represent into a single consensus draft GNSO comment. (I do note that the Council has almost two additional weeks to massage its comment, as the target for submission is December 18th.) This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its consensus views prior to any opportunity to review all the public comments. This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council makes final determinations only after it reviews all public comments. It also puts a large degree of pressure on those constituencies that Councilors represent to instruct us on their views long before the comment period has concluded. My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists for a reason. I’m not for undue delay, but I am for adequate scrutiny, and I am concerned that this timeline does not provide sufficient time for that. “ Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning’s CCWG call, just concluded. Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to limit ICANN’s ability to “regulate” use of the Internet. On page 30 of the Summary memo it says this: The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to: • Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to the Domain Name System (DNS) o ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties (entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain names) [Emphasis added] But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous discussion there is still no agreement on what that language should be, or even the scope of the limitation it is trying to describe (in fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that second point). So on that key subject no one can draft an intelligent and informed comment based upon the high level summary document to be released on 11/15, and must await the full text promised for 11/30 – yet Councilors are supposed to survey those they represent and begin consideration of a draft GNSO comment by December 5th. Let’s be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully informed public comments can be developed and submitted is presently only three weeks, from November 30th to December 21st. For the Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to consider the approval of the CCWG-Accountability 3rd CCWG Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 17th, with the Council Statement being submitted one day later on December 18th. Then Councillors are supposed to consider final documents and motions as early as two weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4th), if the Proposal has changed in any way from the third draft put out for comment -- notwithstanding the fact that both the Christmas and New Year holidays occur within that period. And, BTW, is it realistic to think that the CCWG will be able to review all the comments and draft responsive consensus amendments in the middle of those two weeks? So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that differs quite substantially from the prior member model, prepare thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments. I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of the Accountability process as soon as possible. But I also have strong concerns that we are not providing sufficient time for review of a proposed structure that the community will have to live within for years, and likely decades. 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> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary All, Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow. Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock. Bernard Turcotte Staff Support for the co-chairs. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ 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
+1 to delaying the release of the Executive Summary. I think it's imperative that the CCWG *review and approve* any final draft before it goes out as the work product of the CCWG. As such, the CCWG must *review the second draft* that takes into account the comments on this list. If that can be approved, great. If a third draft is needed before approval is granted, we'll deal with that. If the first draft we've reviewed (which has significant infirmities and gaps) is the last draft we see before this is released to the public, I think it would be wrong to say that that document has the support of the CCWG. Indeed, I am concerned that there could be a need for a "statement of non-support" from members of the CCWG. I hate to even think such a thing, because I am extremely supportive of the great work done by our co-chairs and our staff, and I am one who likes to work "within the process." But as of now, I am extremely uncomfortable with the status of this document. Greg On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Thanks for your message, Thomas. As I think you are aware, none of the timeline concerns I have expressed are in any way a criticism of the work of the CCWG members and participants, who have been performing heroically under difficult pressures.
I have no idea what the positions of other Councilors shall be, but in my view it is not realistic to think the Council will be in a position to take a consensus position on the 3rd draft proposal at its December 5th meeting because that is just five days after the scheduled release of the actual, detailed language of the proposal. I am skeptical that the members of the BC, which I represent on Council, will be able to fully comprehend all its nuances and have all their questions and concerns addressed in that short time, and until they have formed an informed position I will be constrained in my ability to contribute to a Council stance.
Now that the initial draft of the Executive Summary has been released it is even more clear that it cannot be relied upon as the basis for a positional decision by Council, as the initial draft was redundant, incomplete, and unclear. Even if those deficiencies are substantially cured between now and its scheduled November 15th release date (just four days away), it seems inarguable that it will not be fully reliable in that it will be the summary of a proposal of which key components will likely still remain unresolved as of November 15th – including some of the most important issues for the BC, such as ST 18 and the overall role of the GAC in the post-transition environment, as well as ICANN Mission language which acceptably threads the needle between contract enforcement and impermissible forms of “regulation”.
*In my personal opinion the release of the Executive Summary should be delayed and made simultaneous with the release of the final draft Proposal to assure that it accurately describes that draft.* As I commented in a post earlier this morning, “I have reviewed many Executive Summaries over the years, and have seem a wide range of accuracy, comprehensiveness and clarity among them. But never in my life can I recall seeing an Executive Summary published when the underlying document it purported to summarize did not yet exist in final form. This an amazing new concept, though one of questionable legitimacy and usefulness.”
Finally, as to when the Council might responsibly and with adequate information take a position on the third draft Proposal, its January meeting seems like a more appropriate venue, especially if held on January 21st rather than the 14th (noting that the current CCWG timeline calls for a Chartering organization F2F sometime between January 7th and 22nd, but that this could change if the comment period deadlines are adjusted).
*In regard to the comment deadlines, I made this suggestion in a separate email yesterday which I again put out for consideration by the CCWG and ICANN:*
“My personal view is that the public comment period deadline should be pushed back from the current date of December 21st to at least December 30 th, to permit a minimum of 30 days public comment on the full and detailed 3rd draft CCWG proposal to be published on November 30th -- and that the Council and other Chartering Organizations should not be asked to consider the initial consideration and approval of the 3rd draft proposal, and adoption of a formal statement on it, until about two weeks after the comment period closes (January 13th ) so that they all have an opportunity to review what could again be a large volume of comments.
Those adjustments would not necessarily affect the timing of a Chartering organization F2F in January, if it is deemed necessary. If the public comments indicate that further adjustments were required a final proposal could be agreed upon within the CCWG and considered by GNSO Council and the other Chartering Organizations by mid-February, with delivery of a final report to the Board in the third week of February – about one month later than the current projected date of January 22nd.
I believe that modest increase in consideration time will be more than offset by the avoidance of potential landmines in an inadequately vetted Proposal.”
As can be seen, my proposal for a comment deadline adjustment would result in no more than one months’ delay in delivery of a final Proposal to the Board, which I do not see as inordinate given the profound importance of getting right a Proposal that we will all have to live with for many years going forward. Also, to reiterate, I believe that the current deadline schedule, by requiring comments to be filed in an inordinately hasty and inadequately informed manner, risks far greater delay because it is more likely to let matters slip through that later prove to be substantial impediments to CCWG mission completion.
With best regards,
Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] *Sent:* Wednesday, November 11, 2015 8:17 AM *To:* Phil Corwin *Cc:* Bernard Turcotte; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary
Phil,
thank you for your message below.
You specifically comment on the plans for the next GNSO Council meetings. Let me clarify that the suggestions for the GNSO Council’s handling of the CCWG recommendations are based on a best case scenario in which the Council is in a position to consider or even approve the recommendations during its December meeting. If that is not possible, the time line presented in Dublin allows for adoption of the recommendations in January and the proposed time line would still be met. Hence, it is up to the GNSO Council whether it wishes to take any action during its December meeting or not.
Thomas
Am 10.11.2015 um 15:22 schrieb Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>:
While others address the substance of this first full draft of the executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns about the timeline for public comments – including statements from and consideration by the Chartering Organizations.
Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there had been any community discussion to extend the comment period, and this is the reply I made, with special emphasis on my role as a member of the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin consideration of draft GNSO comments regarding the 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th ---
“I don’t know of any discussion yet to extend the comment period, but wouldn’t be all that surprised if there is one, given that this designator model is a major revision and deviation from the prior member model.
Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline, especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent the BC. While the summary report (first draft of which I just forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15th, the full and detailed draft proposal won’t be out until two weeks later, on November 30th. I’ve been through enough legislative processes to know that staff-drafted summaries can never be relied upon to fully and accurately convey the language and potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in the underlying text, and that there is no substitute for its line-by-line dissection.
November 30th is only three weeks prior to the December 21st deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form and submit a fully informed comment, especially for trade associations and other groups which must consider multiple inputs. *Even more worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the Council is supposed to “Share draft GNSO comment on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal” on December 5th, just five days after the full text is released. As I am supposed to represent your consensus views, it means the BC has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss the full text, and that Councilors must then attempt in the short remaining time to reconcile the separate views of those they represent into a single consensus draft GNSO comment. (I do note that the Council has almost two additional weeks to massage its comment, as the target for submission is December 18th.)*
This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its consensus views *prior to* any opportunity to review all the public comments. This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council makes final determinations only *after* it reviews all public comments. It also puts a large degree of pressure on those constituencies that Councilors represent to instruct us on their views long before the comment period has concluded.
My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists for a reason. I’m not for undue delay, but I am for adequate scrutiny, and I am concerned that this timeline does not provide sufficient time for that. “
*Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning’s CCWG call, just concluded.*
Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to limit ICANN’s ability to “regulate” use of the Internet. On page 30 of the Summary memo it says this:
The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to:
• Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to the Domain Name
System (DNS)
o *ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the*
*content that such services carry or provide.*
*o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties*
*(entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain*
*names) *[Emphasis added]
But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous discussion there is still no agreement on what that language should be, or even the scope of the limitation it is trying to describe (in fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that second point). So on that key subject no one can draft an intelligent and informed comment based upon the high level summary document to be released on 11/15, and must await the full text promised for 11/30 – yet Councilors are supposed to survey those they represent and begin consideration of a draft GNSO comment by December 5th.
*Let’s be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully informed public comments can be developed and submitted is presently only three weeks, from November 30th to December 21st.* For the Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to consider the approval of the CCWG-Accountability 3rd CCWG Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 17th, with the Council Statement being submitted one day later on December 18th. Then Councillors are supposed to consider final documents and motions as early as two weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4th), if the Proposal has changed in any way from the third draft put out for comment -- notwithstanding the fact that both the Christmas and New Year holidays occur within that period. And, BTW, is it realistic to think that the CCWG will be able to review all the comments and draft responsive consensus amendments in the middle of those two weeks?
So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that differs quite substantially from the prior member model, prepare thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments.
I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of the Accountability process as soon as possible. But I also have strong concerns that we are not providing sufficient time for review of a proposed structure that the community will have to live within for years, and likely decades.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <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 <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Bernard Turcotte *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary
All,
Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow.
Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock.
Bernard Turcotte
Staff Support
for the co-chairs. ------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ 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
+1 also. Robin On Nov 11, 2015, at 8:57 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
+1 to delaying the release of the Executive Summary.
I think it's imperative that the CCWG review and approve any final draft before it goes out as the work product of the CCWG. As such, the CCWG must review the second draft that takes into account the comments on this list. If that can be approved, great. If a third draft is needed before approval is granted, we'll deal with that.
If the first draft we've reviewed (which has significant infirmities and gaps) is the last draft we see before this is released to the public, I think it would be wrong to say that that document has the support of the CCWG. Indeed, I am concerned that there could be a need for a "statement of non-support" from members of the CCWG. I hate to even think such a thing, because I am extremely supportive of the great work done by our co-chairs and our staff, and I am one who likes to work "within the process." But as of now, I am extremely uncomfortable with the status of this document.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote: Thanks for your message, Thomas. As I think you are aware, none of the timeline concerns I have expressed are in any way a criticism of the work of the CCWG members and participants, who have been performing heroically under difficult pressures.
I have no idea what the positions of other Councilors shall be, but in my view it is not realistic to think the Council will be in a position to take a consensus position on the 3rd draft proposal at its December 5th meeting because that is just five days after the scheduled release of the actual, detailed language of the proposal. I am skeptical that the members of the BC, which I represent on Council, will be able to fully comprehend all its nuances and have all their questions and concerns addressed in that short time, and until they have formed an informed position I will be constrained in my ability to contribute to a Council stance.
Now that the initial draft of the Executive Summary has been released it is even more clear that it cannot be relied upon as the basis for a positional decision by Council, as the initial draft was redundant, incomplete, and unclear. Even if those deficiencies are substantially cured between now and its scheduled November 15th release date (just four days away), it seems inarguable that it will not be fully reliable in that it will be the summary of a proposal of which key components will likely still remain unresolved as of November 15th – including some of the most important issues for the BC, such as ST 18 and the overall role of the GAC in the post-transition environment, as well as ICANN Mission language which acceptably threads the needle between contract enforcement and impermissible forms of “regulation”.
In my personal opinion the release of the Executive Summary should be delayed and made simultaneous with the release of the final draft Proposal to assure that it accurately describes that draft. As I commented in a post earlier this morning, “I have reviewed many Executive Summaries over the years, and have seem a wide range of accuracy, comprehensiveness and clarity among them. But never in my life can I recall seeing an Executive Summary published when the underlying document it purported to summarize did not yet exist in final form. This an amazing new concept, though one of questionable legitimacy and usefulness.”
Finally, as to when the Council might responsibly and with adequate information take a position on the third draft Proposal, its January meeting seems like a more appropriate venue, especially if held on January 21st rather than the 14th (noting that the current CCWG timeline calls for a Chartering organization F2F sometime between January 7th and 22nd, but that this could change if the comment period deadlines are adjusted).
In regard to the comment deadlines, I made this suggestion in a separate email yesterday which I again put out for consideration by the CCWG and ICANN:
“My personal view is that the public comment period deadline should be pushed back from the current date of December 21st to at least December 30th, to permit a minimum of 30 days public comment on the full and detailed 3rd draft CCWG proposal to be published on November 30th -- and that the Council and other Chartering Organizations should not be asked to consider the initial consideration and approval of the 3rd draft proposal, and adoption of a formal statement on it, until about two weeks after the comment period closes (January 13th ) so that they all have an opportunity to review what could again be a large volume of comments.
Those adjustments would not necessarily affect the timing of a Chartering organization F2F in January, if it is deemed necessary. If the public comments indicate that further adjustments were required a final proposal could be agreed upon within the CCWG and considered by GNSO Council and the other Chartering Organizations by mid-February, with delivery of a final report to the Board in the third week of February – about one month later than the current projected date of January 22nd.
I believe that modest increase in consideration time will be more than offset by the avoidance of potential landmines in an inadequately vetted Proposal.”
As can be seen, my proposal for a comment deadline adjustment would result in no more than one months’ delay in delivery of a final Proposal to the Board, which I do not see as inordinate given the profound importance of getting right a Proposal that we will all have to live with for many years going forward. Also, to reiterate, I believe that the current deadline schedule, by requiring comments to be filed in an inordinately hasty and inadequately informed manner, risks far greater delay because it is more likely to let matters slip through that later prove to be substantial impediments to CCWG mission completion.
With 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
From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 8:17 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Bernard Turcotte; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary
Phil,
thank you for your message below.
You specifically comment on the plans for the next GNSO Council meetings. Let me clarify that the suggestions for the GNSO Council’s handling of the CCWG recommendations are based on a best case scenario in which the Council is in a position to consider or even approve the recommendations during its December meeting. If that is not possible, the time line presented in Dublin allows for adoption of the recommendations in January and the proposed time line would still be met. Hence, it is up to the GNSO Council whether it wishes to take any action during its December meeting or not.
Thomas
Am 10.11.2015 um 15:22 schrieb Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>:
While others address the substance of this first full draft of the executive summary I want to get on the record my personal concerns about the timeline for public comments – including statements from and consideration by the Chartering Organizations.
Yesterday I was asked by one participant in the BC whether there had been any community discussion to extend the comment period, and this is the reply I made, with special emphasis on my role as a member of the GNSO Council which is scheduled to begin consideration of draft GNSO comments regarding the 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 5th ---
“I don’t know of any discussion yet to extend the comment period, but wouldn’t be all that surprised if there is one, given that this designator model is a major revision and deviation from the prior member model.
Personally, I am not at all comfortable with the timeline, especially in my role as Councilor trying to responsibly represent the BC. While the summary report (first draft of which I just forwarded to all BC members) will be put out on November 15th, the full and detailed draft proposal won’t be out until two weeks later, on November 30th. I’ve been through enough legislative processes to know that staff-drafted summaries can never be relied upon to fully and accurately convey the language and potential ambiguities and inconsistencies in the underlying text, and that there is no substitute for its line-by-line dissection.
November 30th is only three weeks prior to the December 21st deadline for public comment, which IMHO is insufficient to form and submit a fully informed comment, especially for trade associations and other groups which must consider multiple inputs. Even more worrisome, from my Councilor perspective, is that the Council is supposed to “Share draft GNSO comment on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal” on December 5th, just five days after the full text is released. As I am supposed to represent your consensus views, it means the BC has only 2-3 days to consider and discuss the full text, and that Councilors must then attempt in the short remaining time to reconcile the separate views of those they represent into a single consensus draft GNSO comment. (I do note that the Council has almost two additional weeks to massage its comment, as the target for submission is December 18th.)
This timeline requires the Council to draft and submit its consensus views prior to any opportunity to review all the public comments. This is very different from the PDP process in which the Council makes final determinations only after it reviews all public comments. It also puts a large degree of pressure on those constituencies that Councilors represent to instruct us on their views long before the comment period has concluded.
My life experience is that the adage haste makes waste persists for a reason. I’m not for undue delay, but I am for adequate scrutiny, and I am concerned that this timeline does not provide sufficient time for that. “
Those thoughts were further reinforced by this morning’s CCWG call, just concluded.
Take for example the Mission Statement discussion, about how to limit ICANN’s ability to “regulate” use of the Internet. On page 30 of the Summary memo it says this:
The CCWG-Accountability recommends clarifying ICANN’s Mission and Core Values to:
• Reinforce the scope of ICANN’s organizational activities related to the Domain Name
System (DNS)
o ICANN is not to regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the
content that such services carry or provide.
o ICANN is to have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties
(entities that have signed agreements with ICANN in relation to top level domain
names) [Emphasis added]
But as we just saw on the call, after one hour of vigorous discussion there is still no agreement on what that language should be, or even the scope of the limitation it is trying to describe (in fact, there is some rather broad disagreement on that second point). So on that key subject no one can draft an intelligent and informed comment based upon the high level summary document to be released on 11/15, and must await the full text promised for 11/30 – yet Councilors are supposed to survey those they represent and begin consideration of a draft GNSO comment by December 5th.
Let’s be honest and admit that the actual period in which fully informed public comments can be developed and submitted is presently only three weeks, from November 30th to December 21st. For the Council it is even less time, as it is scheduled to consider the approval of the CCWG-Accountability 3rd CCWG Proposal Review and adoption of GNSO statement on 3rd draft CCWG Proposal on December 17th, with the Council Statement being submitted one day later on December 18th. Then Councillors are supposed to consider final documents and motions as early as two weeks after the close of the public comment period (January 4th), if the Proposal has changed in any way from the third draft put out for comment -- notwithstanding the fact that both the Christmas and New Year holidays occur within that period. And, BTW, is it realistic to think that the CCWG will be able to review all the comments and draft responsive consensus amendments in the middle of those two weeks?
So I strongly question whether sufficient time has been accorded under the current timeline to review a designator proposal that differs quite substantially from the prior member model, prepare thoughtful and comprehensive comments, and make responsive adjustments and final changes based upon those public comments.
I realize that there is a strong desire to complete this phase of the Accountability process as soon as possible. But I also have strong concerns that we are not providing sufficient time for review of a proposed structure that the community will have to live within for years, and likely decades.
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 Bernard Turcotte Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary
All,
Please find attached the first full draft of the executive summary which will be discussed on the call tomorrow.
Apologies for the delay in getting this out but people have been working almost around the clock.
Bernard Turcotte
Staff Support
for the co-chairs.
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4450/10889 - Release Date: 10/25/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (15)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andrew Sullivan -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Edward Morris -
Greg Shatan -
Izumi Okutani -
Jari Arkko -
Matthew Shears -
Nigel Roberts -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Corwin -
Robin Gross -
Schaefer, Brett -
Seun Ojedeji -
Thomas Rickert