On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 04:15:14PM +0000, Nigel Roberts wrote:
The Co-Chairs and ICANN itself seem to prefer 'FAST'.
To be fair, the three IANA operational communities also have some stake in this work concluding. The argument in Dublin was that the very aggressive timeline was only a positive-path scenario, and that if anything went wrong then the whole package, including the transition, looked to be in trouble. That was the basis on which I observed that, while this sort of positive-path planning is never the best answer, sometimes you have to do it. It was clear, for instance, that if the public comment came back with substantive changes needed that were not reflected in what the chartering organizations had approved, the whole plan fell apart. That's a risk the community has to take to try to make the IANA transition happen, I think. A year ago, the RIRs and the IETF spent lots of time at inconvenient points of the calendar in order to get their proposals ready in time for the then-deadline. They did it. What I saw in Dublin was inspiring: the CCWG was pulling together to achieve a similar victory, despite the long odds. This is certainly a hard thing to do, but I'm super heartened with the way different expressions of multi-stakeholder processes work out (though messy in process) in the end. If I can help at all, I'm here to try to do so; but in the meantime, I hope we can agree that the situation is not hopeless. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com