ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

[bc-gnso] Timing of CCWG-Accountability

  • To: BC List <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [bc-gnso] Timing of CCWG-Accountability
  • From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 15:11:05 +0000

On yesterday’s BC call, Phil and I mentioned the board’s comments on 
CCWG-Accountability proposal might affect timing of the transition.

Below is the transcript of how the board and CEO responded to my question.  
Essentially, we (the community) control the timing.  So if we want to take more 
time, we make the call.

Steve DelBianco:         Thanks, David, Cherine, and Steve.  It's a question 
about your expectations on how these comments will affect the timing of the 
process.  As you're probably well aware, the Executive team at ICANN was quite 
clear with the CCWG leadership.  You had an urgency with respect to dates of 
getting it to the Board, getting it to NTIA.  And actually, we really took that 
on.  This started in Dublin, where we really took on a very aggressive schedule.

                                    And I'm wondering whether you have an 
expectation--or even discussed it at the Board level, an expectation that 
resolving some of the concerns that you've raised and adding the details which 
you'd asked for will probably cause us to slip on the deadlines we set, the 
aspirations we set while in Dublin.

And we are comfortable with that, and we'll do what we have to do to 
accommodate not only the Board but all the Chartering Organizations that are 
really the driving force behind CCWG.  But, I'm just interested to know if you 
discussed it and have an expectation about what this does to the timing.  Thank 

Cherine Chalaby:         Steve, this is Cherine.  Thank you.  I will--I'll ask 
our Chairman, Steve Croker, to respond to that.  Steve?

Steve Crocker:            Thank you, Cherine, and thank you for the question, 
Steve.  Well, as you properly point out, we're--we've got two competing forces 
here.  One is to get it done quickly, and the other is--or in a timely fashion. 
 The other is to get it done right.  And that's kind of the classic squeeze.

                                    We have very purposefully and carefully 
limited the set of things that we are pushing hard on here.  We would hope that 
a relatively brief engagement on these matters would lead to a fairly rapid 
resolution.  And I don't think that it's helpful for us to concentrate too much 
on saying what happens in the extreme.

Should we--if we take an absolute position that timing is everything and 
therefore the substance of the proposal is compromised if we can't meet that 
timing, I'm not prepared to say that at all.  This is definitely not transition 
at any cost.

And on the other hand, we're all involved, I think quite constructively, in 
trying to move this process forward in a timely fashion and get on with it.  I 
think it serves no one's interest to have the delays--to have this process 
delayed and extended.  The risks to all parties and all purposes just increase 
at that point.  So, I'd rather focus on the content of what we're saying and 
then to find a way to move forward as rapidly as possible.

Cherine Chalaby:         Thank you, Steve.  At Steve's side, you would like to 
add a word or two on this issue, Fadi?

Fadi Chehade:             Yes.  Hi, Cherine.  Thank you.  Thank you, Steve, as 
well for your comment.  I just would like to answer Steve with a couple of 

                                    This is a comment period.  And my 
assumption is that CCWG, I'm sure in its planning, assumed people will indeed 
submit comments.  And I think that's what the Board is doing in good faith.  
And so did ALAC signal at the same time as the Board that they have been 
working diligently on their own comments.  And others have indicated, even 
before the Board submitted its comments, that they have comments coming.  So, 
this is, I think, expected.  And I'm presuming this is all part of the planning 
for the CCWG.

                                    Now, in terms of the--your comment that 
staff has been putting, I guess, pressure on the timeline, let me be very 
clear.  The timeline has been set by the community.  When the request came from 
NTIA to ask when did the community think it needs to end this process, it's in 
fact the community that has determined the timelines.

                                    All we are doing is working within the 
community's timeline to give people a sense of what needs to be done, whether 
it's from our side or from the NTIA side or from the implementation side in 
order to meet the community's own timeline.  That is our commitment to you.

                                    So if, in any of our communications of such 
timelines we left anybody with the sense that we are putting pressure, frankly 
that is simply a misunderstanding.  We are simply managing to the community's 
timeline to lapse the contract on September 30th, 2016.  And we've been simply 
sharing, accordingly, how the process will go and what are the steps in order 
to make sure, you know, just in normal project management mode within the 
direction of the community, everyone is clear on the timeline ahead.

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy