RE: [council] RE: Taking the Council's Temperature on Procedures for Consideration of 3rd Accountability Proposal

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

In regard to this--

        At the extreme end, a "meltdown scenario" would mean the sum of these 
delays requires another extension of the IANA contract beyond 2016.  A new 
administration         might terminate the transition, or put it on hold, or 
restart the process with new requirements.  

--I just want to note that the FY 15 Appropriations bill prohibited the NTIA 
from spending a single penny to implement the IANA transition, and in January 
2015 remarks at the State of the Net conference Secretary Strickling indicated 
that the statutory language would indeed bar NTIA completion of the transition.

The short term Appropriations bill enacted in September 2015 extended the IANA 
transition freeze through the end of its funding period -- which is this 
Friday, December 11th.

It's not at all clear whether a long term funding bill will be agreed to by 
Friday, which may necessitate another short term extender -- or a temporary US 
government shutdown.

In any event, when a one year appropriations bill is finally enacted this month 
it may continue the prohibition on the  IANA transition, and/or it may contain 
the DotCom Act or some version thereof, or it may tie them together in some 
way.  

I don't know what the end result will be, but we should know by this weekend or 
next week. I'm just pointing out that the NTIA transition freeze may be 
continued by statute through September 30, 2016. That wouldn't necessarily  
mean that the IANA contract would need to be extended through 2017, but it 
could mean that the earliest transition date would be October 1, 2016.

Don't shoot the messenger ;-)


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


-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 8:46 PM
To: McGrady, Paul D.
Cc: Drazek, Keith; Phil Corwin; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Taking the Council's Temperature on Procedures for 
Consideration of 3rd Accountability Proposal

Hi Paul -

(1) I don't think it's attributable to one person or group, but the cumulative 
effect of laying all the dependent critical paths (CCWG, Board, NTIA) 
end-to-end.

(2) I can't see how the CCWG proposal can proceed without GNSO approval, so 
(speculation ahead) any delay on our part may only cut in to the timeline of 
other groups.  For example, the implementation of amendments to the bylaws may 
need to be accelerated, or (as was suggested) the period allocated by NTIA for 
its internal review will have to be shortened.  

At the extreme end, a "meltdown scenario" would mean the sum of these delays 
requires another extension of the IANA contract beyond 2016.  A new 
administration might terminate the transition, or put it on hold, or restart 
the process with new requirements.  

I'm sure I've left out some essential bits. But these are great questions, and 
I would ask that you raise them again with the CCWG co-chairs when they join 
our call next week.  And if we do go beyond January, then perhaps we should 
prepare an estimate & plan for whatever extra time is needed to conduct a 
review that is satisfactory to all SGs.

Thank you,

J.
____________
James Bladel
GoDaddy

> On Dec 7, 2015, at 18:19, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi James,
> 
> A few questions:
> 
> Who is putting this "external" pressure on the Council?
> 
> What happens if we don't vote in January?  Does the Council need the approval 
> of the external pressure people (whomever that is) or do they need us?
> 
> I'm not advocating anything particular at this point. I'm just trying to 
> understand this "ultra-rush" landscape as best I can in order to explain it 
> when asked.
> 
> Thanks,
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Dec 7, 2015, at 6:01 PM, James M. Bladel 
> <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
> Hi folks -
> 
> Just a reminder that the 17 DEC GNSO Council meeting will have a slot on the 
> agenda to discuss any high-level concerns/red flags raised by any SGs.  This 
> is not the last opportunity for individuals or SGs to weigh in on these 
> recommendations.  But we should have a clearer sense of whether or not there 
> are any signifiant outstanding issues.  And a reminder that we have planned 
> two additional meeting times planned (14 JAN and 21 JAN) for the final review 
> & vote to adopt the the report.
> 
> It is my hope that all SG concerns will be raised/expressed by then, if not 
> sooner.  However, I should point out that due to external time constraints, 
> we cannot entertain any requests for deferrals if the vote takes place in 
> January.
> 
> Thanks-
> 
> J.
> 
> From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
> behalf of Keith Drazek <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Friday, December 4, 2015 at 11:40
> To: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List 
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Subject: [council] RE: Taking the Council's Temperature on Procedures for 
> Consideration of 3rd Accountability Proposal
> 
> Thanks Phil.
> 
> The RySG is working now to develop its comments and position statements on 
> the CCWG Proposal. I expect they will be completed prior to our next call on 
> December 17.
> 
> Regards,
> Keith
> 
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 1:29 PM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [council] Taking the Council's Temperature on Procedures for 
> Consideration of 3rd Accountability Proposal
> 
> Fellow Councilors:
> 
> This morning the BC held its regular members' call, and we got into some 
> discussion in regard to background information I had circulated prior to the 
> call (below). However, there was insufficient participation to reach a BC 
> consensus, and we shall continue the discussion on the BC email list.
> 
> It was decided on the call that I would reach out to other Councilors to get 
> an initial impression of whether we are aiming to discuss and vote on a 
> Resolution of approval or disapproval in two weeks, on our call of December 
> 17th, or whether we wish to bring that question to a vote on our first call 
> of January 2016.
> 
> If we are targeting the 17th then we have a great deal of work to do, 
> including getting consensus feedback from those we represent and preparing a 
> draft Resolution. If we are looking toward January then I would strongly 
> suggest that we schedule that call for January 14th, and not the 21st which 
> is only one day prior to the target delivery date to the Board.
> 
> What are your views on this most important matter?
> 
> Very best regards,
> Philip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *******************************
> BC members, please note that the second item in item #2, following Steve's 
> review of the Policy calendar, is:
> ·         Discussion of final Accountability proposal #3- Comments close 
> December 21- procedure for BC input into CSG, and then GNSO, for Chartering 
> Organization decision
> 
> The third Accountability proposal was published on Monday, November 30 for a 
> comment period closing on December 21. The target date for delivering the 
> Proposal to the Board for its consideration is January 22, 2016.
> 
> While public comment is being solicited, we are now at the stage where the 
> primary objective is to get the Chartering Organizations to indicate whether 
> they approve or disapprove of the Proposal - and, if they disapprove, what 
> changes would be required for approval.
> 
> The GNSO is the relevant Chartering organization for the BC. The next meeting 
> of the GNSO Council is scheduled for December 17, two weeks from today and 
> four days before the close of the public comment period. Susan and I will be 
> looking to BC members to provide a consensus view of the proposal that we can 
> convey to the rest of the CSG, as well as the NCSG and the full Council.
> 
> The first meeting of the Council in 2016 will be held on either January 14 or 
> 21. If Council does not approve a Resolution of approval or disapproval on 
> December 17 then I think it is a sure bet that the next call will be on 
> January 14, eight days prior to the scheduled Board delivery date.
> 
> With all of that as background, the guidance your Councilors are looking for 
> on today's call is whether BC members believe they will be able to convey a 
> consensus view on the proposal prior to the December 17 Council meeting, or 
> whether we should be targeting January 14 for that Council decision. If you 
> are planning to be on today's call please be prepared to share your view on 
> that question, and if you are not on the call please provide your view on the 
> BC-Private list.
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, 
> if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading 
> it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable 
> privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of 
> the author.

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15