[Internal-cg] Time frame inquiry

[Milton L Mueller]

> 
> Milton et al - I'm trying to understand the situation better. Are those bylaws
> changes specified in full detail as a result of the final submission of the
> CCWG work, or will some further work be required?
> 
> Jari

Good question. 

If the CCWG and CWG will draft specific language that the ICANN board only has to adopt, then no further work will be required. (I think - and hope - that that is the base for many things, such as the revised scope and mission statements.)

If the CCWG and CWG issue instructions that indicate less specifically what ICANN needs to do, then some further work will be required. I can see how, if ICANN is required to translate the instructions of the CCWG/CWG into specific bylaw language, that the community would want a chance to comment on how well it did that. So maybe the process as proposed in Steve's letter is not so bad. 

Based on long experience in this environment, however, I would caution that the community would have to pay very careful attention to the gap between 'policy' as established by the CCWG/CWG, and 'implementation' by ICANN. Just as there is many a slip between the cup and the lip, sometimes the policies established by the community become unrecognizable during the implementation process; the policy can even be undermined. 

--MM