Stephen Might I request that you could Council at our next meeting? I happen to agree with an awful lot of what you say, as I've been TRYING, and failing to participate in the same WG for many of the reasons you describe in the below. Nigel -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Sidley/Adler & Colvin comments on Executive Summary Draft Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 06:54:44 -0500 From: Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake@nic.as> Reply-To: sdeerhake@nic.as Organization: AS Domain Registry To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org To the Co-chairs: Now that the lawyers have weighed in, can we stop with the bullshit now, please? And by that I mean can we stop pretending that we have to force all this to a conclusion over the next couple of weeks, put it all out for public comment without a proposal (even an Excutive Summary) for the Community to comment on, expect the SO's to pass judgement on something by year's end that (a) doesn't appear to actually be written down on paper, (b) has not had a proper public comment period, and (c) is really, really critical to the future? Do you seriously expect the SO's to sign off on this "work product" as it currently stands? There isn't even agreement on the wording of ICANN's "Mission Statement" post transition. Seriously? I echo Phil Corwin's post regarding his frustrations about the "timeline". The timeline is bunk. It is an artifical construct, being used to stifle discussion and force "pre-determined" positions into the final proposal, etc. After several months of involvement with the CCWG, I am now completely convinced that the timeline is being used to corrupt the process. This process does not have to be completed and delivered to the NTIA by a particular date. It appears to me that this timeline is in fact in place simply to insure the conclusion of the process prior to the 2016 US election and a possible outcome of that democratic process that produces an Administration that might be less favourable to the transition than we would like. The proposal should prevail on it's merits. It has to be done right. Regardless of the timeframe required. We (the Names Community) should apologise to the other parts of ICANN that have gotten their act together and come up with what they needed to for the transition -- the Names Community has a bit of a mess on our hands, and it's taking us somewhat longer to muddle through to an an acceptable proposal. And guess what? If we can't get our collective act together, the status quo will continue. It's not like the world will come to an end if we don't get SO sign off on who knows what by year's end. Stephen Deerhake sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as> sdeerhake@gdns.net <mailto:sdeerhake@gdns.net>