+1 Time to wrap this up. On 06/02/2016 14:48, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
Well said
Jonathan Zuck President ACT: The App Association
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 11:55 AM -0800, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> wrote:
All,
As I have respectfully noted several times, and will reiterate again...the GAC as a whole has taken no position on Rec-1 and Rec-11 and is highly unlikely to do so. There simply is not consensus within the GAC on these issues. The Arasteh/Burr proposal is as close as we're likely to get to a compromise that will not be rejected by any Chartering Org and will be acceptable to NTIA and Congress. This is it. It's time to finalize this work and deliver a proposal to the Chartering Organizations so we can meet the Marrakech deadline for approval.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 6, 2016, at 2:17 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
I have to agree with Andrew on this, this is a topic we can debate for weeks on end. We need to move forward.
-jg
On 06/02/2016, 6:53 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Andrew Sullivan" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 09:31:03PM +0000, Perez Galindo, Rafael wrote:
For that reason, I believe it should be very carefully analyzed and assessed, from an implementing and legal POV. Such a decision cannot be taken in a rush, without considering its consequences and possible side effects.
I agree it should be carefully analysed and contemplated, but that analysis and contemplation should take place before the next call not dedicated to Rec. 11 (my calendar seems to think that's Tuesday).
The CCWG needs to come to a close and ship something -- even a report out that there's no solution would be better than more delay. There is simply no more time to dither. The transition (or its failure) is waiting on this CCWG's output. The operational communities need to know what their next available range(s) of action will be.
Moreover, if the GAC really cannot accept this proposed compromise, it seems at least to me that the hope of any compromise ever being reached is roughly zero. Therefore, the CCWG members should vote on something and move on. I vastly prefer consensus, but in the community where I usually work we would have declared this consensus rough some time ago and closed the discussion.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears@cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus