ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary

  • To: Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary
  • From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:27:07 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • In-reply-to: <FC6BC6D9-C405-4E1A-89D2-451C5B4A1C68@anwaelte.de>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E1DE6E850@Exchange.sierracorporation.com> <FC6BC6D9-C405-4E1A-89D2-451C5B4A1C68@anwaelte.de>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AQHRHISpbmcmb31y1UG2iLPDGXizSA==
  • Thread-topic: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - Executive Summary
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/

Forwarding on behalf of Thomas Rickert.

 on behalf of Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday 11 November 2015 07:16
To: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Accountability Cross Community 
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comment Timeline Concerns -- RE: CCWG - 
Executive Summary

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.


Am 10.11.2015 um 15:22 schrieb Phil Corwin 

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 

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 

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

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

 [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bernard 
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 4:42 PM
To: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary


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

Attachment: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail.asc

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>