Thanks for taking the time to put together this comprehensive timeline of events. I can personally attest that this particular holiday season, including the fires in Los Angeles has been fraught with distractions. I take personal responsibility for how this fell through the cracks and folks were allowed to continue down the wrong path. I felt important, regardless of the effort to correct what we were submitting for this particular RFC so that our submission would be on point. So again, I take responsibility for how sloppy the substitution was at the last minute. That said, I think we did the right thing but we are left with a couple of unresolved issues. First, how do we avoid this sort of situation in the future and what is the best way to proceed now with our CIP efforts to capture the enormous efforts put into this document by you, Marita and Maureen.

On the first point, it's a bit ironic that the issue at hand, in this case, is continuous improvement as many of the issues you have raised fit into that basket. We need to find our way to an efficient but equitable process to get informed consensus both from the WGs and ultimately the ALAC. It is certainly MY impression that we have the most difficulty with informed consensus when we start with a draft document rather than an outline, presented to the WG (CPWG or OFBWG). If we can reach informed consensus on the main points we would like to make in a particular comment, there's less concern about everyone absorbing the details. When we start with a document, it it becomes a sort of self-selected appraisal process, rather than a discuss towards consensus. Consequently, I have been advocating for each comment to begin as an outline, and presented orally to the WG. Once we have rough consensus on the main points, drafters would expand on those points in a written document. At that point, those evaluating that draft would simply be looking for a faithful representation of agreed on points, not trying to assess whether the points being made are appropriate. My interventions on this have been informal to date but long standing but the time has come to formalize them so, together with Andrew and the ATL, I will endeavor to bring this process to the ALAC as a formal process with well-defined roles. We'll discuss from there.

As for the work already done, it certainly provides fodder for discussion on the ALAC CIP document that we still need to compose. While I cannot guarantee that everything from this effort will make it into the final document, as it is still subject to discussion, I suspect a great majority of it will find it's way into our final communication. It's not time wasted, though I'm sure that having spent that time during the holidays makes it particularly precious time. We will through our CIP plans for the ALAC endeavor to explore your proposals in detail and engage with you on the best path forward to a final document.

Dear ALAC Colleagues,

I hope this message finds you well.

As agreed during the OFB meeting last Thursday, I am sending you a formal, detailed review of the CIP comment drafting timeline, which has been prepared by the drafting team: Maureen Hilyard, Marita Moll, and myself (Joanna Kulesza, undersigned below, currently serving as the ALAC Liaison to the GAC) attached to this message. In response to the request made, we have provided a comprehensive recap of the events surrounding the development of this document.

You can find the original document, as submitted by the drafting team for the ALAC vote, also attached for your review. This document includes all the recommendations that resulted from the inclusive and open process, which has been the standard for developing consensus within the At-Large community.

We would like to express once again our continuing disappointment with the processes that have accompanied the drafting of this document, in particular the lack of transparency and accountability that has been identified. We hope that this difficult situation will serve as a catalyst for improving internal procedures to promote greater transparency and clearer accountability mechanisms for all those involved in the preparation of At-Large documents. Ultimately, we seek real progress — not just 'continuous' effort - in improving the multi-stakeholder model for decision making within the ICANN community and, in particular, for the benefit of the unique end-user community whose interests we aspire to represent.

We look forward to continuing our work together to address these important issues.

Best regards,

Joanna Kulesza

(on behalf of the drafting team: Maureen Hilyard, Marita Moll, and Joanna Kulesza)