On 07/30/2015 03:02 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:

As one of the folks who does not have the massive amount of time
required to participate in these important negotiations, but is
nevertheless very interested, may I submit the following:
1.  I agree with Chris, this is a point of fundamental fairness. Slow down.

I agree.

2.  As I think it was George S has said, there is never time to do it
right, but always time to do it over.  Why not negotiate for more time
to complete the report?

Negotiate with whom?

What I see is a conflict of evidence. .NZ (Jordan) is stating that we need to stick to the timetable because of external requirements, as follow

 It is not self-created urgency in the slightest. It is urgency that comes from, among other places, ICANN itself; the United States Government; parts of the technical community who have wanted to be without the USG link for a very long time.

Firstly it is NOT the USG. I heard Mr Strickling say this, in person.

But I will agree that itt does come, as you say, from within ICANN itself. That is exactly self-created urgency/

I cannot see how the technical community can set the schedule on on what is, essential, the construction of ICANN 3.0 and I'd be grateful for a pointer to who, and how, set the schedule in this way.

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community