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

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

James,

These days anything that requires a decision by the US government is 
complicated. 

Hopefully all this will be clearer by the Dec. 17 Council call. 

Best, Philip 

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

Sent from my iPad

> On Dec 7, 2015, at 10:06 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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