A request re changes to WS1 matters
Hi all While I have seen some general comments from a range of people about the need to keep WS1 as narrow as possible, I haven't seen any specific proposals for what should be deferred to WS2. *It would be helpful to understand the thinking behind this desire for change if, rather than making general comments, people could specifically suggest:* *- what part/s of the current WS1 proposal they would like to see transferred* *- why they would like to see that part/s transferred* *- the overall impact they see on the coherence of the WS1 proposal caused by such a transfer* For myself, since we have adopted a minimalist approach from the start of the work, I don't have any parts I wish to see transferred. Further, I see substantial risks to the integrity of the proposal and its ability to deliver meaningful reform to ICANN's accountability if any of the current parts are deferred. That said: new ideas always deserve consideration on their merits. So please treat me as able to be convinced by strong logic and arguments that the benefits of transferring something outweigh the risks. cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *
I do not wish to see any parts of WS1 moved to WS2. We have traction and need to push on. On Wednesday, 15 July 2015, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
While I have seen some general comments from a range of people about the need to keep WS1 as narrow as possible, I haven't seen any specific proposals for what should be deferred to WS2.
*It would be helpful to understand the thinking behind this desire for change if, rather than making general comments, people could specifically suggest:*
*- what part/s of the current WS1 proposal they would like to see transferred* *- why they would like to see that part/s transferred* *- the overall impact they see on the coherence of the WS1 proposal caused by such a transfer*
For myself, since we have adopted a minimalist approach from the start of the work, I don't have any parts I wish to see transferred. Further, I see substantial risks to the integrity of the proposal and its ability to deliver meaningful reform to ICANN's accountability if any of the current parts are deferred.
That said: new ideas always deserve consideration on their merits. So please treat me as able to be convinced by strong logic and arguments that the benefits of transferring something outweigh the risks.
cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> Skype: jordancarter
*A better world through a better Internet *
Agreed. Happy for WS1 not to grow, however. Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Matthew Shears<mailto:mshears@cdt.org> Sent: 7/16/2015 1:44 PM To: Jordan Carter<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Cc: Accountability Cross Community<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A request re changes to WS1 matters I do not wish to see any parts of WS1 moved to WS2. We have traction and need to push on. On Wednesday, 15 July 2015, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: Hi all While I have seen some general comments from a range of people about the need to keep WS1 as narrow as possible, I haven't seen any specific proposals for what should be deferred to WS2. It would be helpful to understand the thinking behind this desire for change if, rather than making general comments, people could specifically suggest: - what part/s of the current WS1 proposal they would like to see transferred - why they would like to see that part/s transferred - the overall impact they see on the coherence of the WS1 proposal caused by such a transfer For myself, since we have adopted a minimalist approach from the start of the work, I don't have any parts I wish to see transferred. Further, I see substantial risks to the integrity of the proposal and its ability to deliver meaningful reform to ICANN's accountability if any of the current parts are deferred. That said: new ideas always deserve consideration on their merits. So please treat me as able to be convinced by strong logic and arguments that the benefits of transferring something outweigh the risks. cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet
Agreed on both points, Jonathan. Some people may be content to move certain things that they never felt important to WS2, but everything in WS1 is necessary to gain the general consensus of support that is required for transition to proceed. Deferring anything from this minimal set would sabotage transition. Malcolm.
On 16 Jul 2015, at 13:14, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
Agreed. Happy for WS1 not to grow, however.
Sent from my Windows Phone From: Matthew Shears Sent: 7/16/2015 1:44 PM To: Jordan Carter Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A request re changes to WS1 matters
I do not wish to see any parts of WS1 moved to WS2. We have traction and need to push on.
On Wednesday, 15 July 2015, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote: Hi all
While I have seen some general comments from a range of people about the need to keep WS1 as narrow as possible, I haven't seen any specific proposals for what should be deferred to WS2.
It would be helpful to understand the thinking behind this desire for change if, rather than making general comments, people could specifically suggest:
- what part/s of the current WS1 proposal they would like to see transferred - why they would like to see that part/s transferred - the overall impact they see on the coherence of the WS1 proposal caused by such a transfer
For myself, since we have adopted a minimalist approach from the start of the work, I don't have any parts I wish to see transferred. Further, I see substantial risks to the integrity of the proposal and its ability to deliver meaningful reform to ICANN's accountability if any of the current parts are deferred.
That said: new ideas always deserve consideration on their merits. So please treat me as able to be convinced by strong logic and arguments that the benefits of transferring something outweigh the risks.
cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
If we are identifying things that belong into WS1 then WS1 WILL grow. It's the issues that are important, not the timeline. And currently there is nothing in there for ccTLDS. Not taking this serious might turn out to be counterproductive... el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jul 16, 2015, at 14:14, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
Agreed. Happy for WS1 not to grow, however.
Sent from my Windows Phone From: Matthew Shears Sent: 7/16/2015 1:44 PM To: Jordan Carter Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A request re changes to WS1 matters
I do not wish to see any parts of WS1 moved to WS2. We have traction and need to push on.
On Wednesday, 15 July 2015, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote: Hi all
While I have seen some general comments from a range of people about the need to keep WS1 as narrow as possible, I haven't seen any specific proposals for what should be deferred to WS2.
It would be helpful to understand the thinking behind this desire for change if, rather than making general comments, people could specifically suggest:
- what part/s of the current WS1 proposal they would like to see transferred - why they would like to see that part/s transferred - the overall impact they see on the coherence of the WS1 proposal caused by such a transfer
For myself, since we have adopted a minimalist approach from the start of the work, I don't have any parts I wish to see transferred. Further, I see substantial risks to the integrity of the proposal and its ability to deliver meaningful reform to ICANN's accountability if any of the current parts are deferred.
That said: new ideas always deserve consideration on their merits. So please treat me as able to be convinced by strong logic and arguments that the benefits of transferring something outweigh the risks.
cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (5)
-
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Jonathan Zuck -
Jordan Carter -
Malcolm Hutty -
Matthew Shears