Robin and others

I also support your idea and proposal that the CCWG and CWG need to coordinate the activities

Too much pressure . too harsh activities

too little time to study. too little time to be abale to raise questions and too little time to answer those question

RUSH RUSH AND RUSH

Dear co -chairs

It just does not work

You push to provide something to public to commentt.

But what we are cooking is so vague, ambigeous, incomplete and contradictory the the comments would not be productive

Pls reconsider the pace ,the speed and think of some level but minimum level of acceptable qusality

We just collect contradictory views and put them together

Let us review the matter

There is NO RUSH

Kavouss

2015-04-16 14:28 GMT+02:00 Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>:

I couldn¹t agree more, very well put

Thanks,

Roelof

On 14-04-15 16:44, "Robin Gross" <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:

>It is important to remember that the transition does not happen until we
>are done. That is the order of events. Not the other way around. We
>are not rushing to meet someone else's deadline because the transition
>cannot occur until we've got consensus and approval of the changes that
>must be made before it can occur. Sometimes we forget that we are the
>driving force in this timeline. Sometimes we think that we must rush to
>meet these dates, but that isn't how this process has actually been set
>up. I agree we need to continue to work quickly, but not because there
>is a limited window in the next 2 weeks to come up a proposal, but
>because we have a window in the next 4-6 months, and we should take that
>time to get it right.
>
>Thanks,
>Robin
>
>
>On Apr 14, 2015, at 6:30 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
>
>> Eberhard,
>>
>> I believe the contract WILL be extended.
>>
>> I agree content and getting accountability right is paramount.
>>
>> I also believe there is a limited window of opportunity to secure a
>>transition.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Apr 14, 2015, at 3:11 PM, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Co-Chairs,
>>>
>>> It is a FUNDAMENTAL issue, are we approaching this right or wrong?
>>>
>>> I think we did this wrong right from the start, and are doing this
>>> wrong. If we are getting this wrong, a transition would not achieve
>>>what
>>> we all want.
>>>
>>> There is no deadline which would make the transition fail, they will
>>> just extend the contract.
>>>
>>> We must not sacrifice content, under ANY circumstances.
>>>
>>> el
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 2015-04-14 13:39, Drazek, Keith wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> I am strongly in support of getting accountability reforms
>>>> "right," but I'm also sensitive to a possibly limited window of
>>>> opportunity to secure a transition of IANA stewardship.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
>>> el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
>>> PO Box 8421 \ /
>>> Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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