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

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Phil.  I was starting to worry that this would get complicated.

J.
____________
James Bladel
GoDaddy

> On Dec 7, 2015, at 20:23, Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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