Call(s) on Thursday
Dear all, The poll is now closed. Staff will proceed to schedule two calls for Thursday 30 July: * 11:00 13:00 UTC * 17:00 19:00 UTC (this call may need to be extended depending on progress made) Please look forward to calendar notices. The Agenda will follow later today. Best, Grace From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 10:24 AM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] IMPORTANT: Doodle Poll for Thursday Call Dear all, On today¹s call we did not complete the review of documents, so there is a need for another CCWG-Accountability plenary call on Thursday. We need to schedule this call with 24h notice, so this gives us a very short "Doodle-window². Please complete the Doodle below by 05:00 UTC on Wednesday 29 July. Doodle link: http://doodle.com/v7pnmag2puyba8g5 Thank you, Grace
I have a previous engagement at 17:00 UTC. And as previously I object against having 2 or more calls on the same day. greetings, el On 2015-07-29 08:23, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
The poll is now closed. Staff will proceed to schedule _two calls for Thursday 30 July_:
* 11:00 – 13:00 UTC * 17:00 – 19:00 UTC (this call may need to be extended depending on progress made)
Please look forward to calendar notices. The Agenda will follow later today.
Best, Grace [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
As a mere participant I have found it almost impossible to join the calls due to the vast number of them and the release of important documents no more than hours before. If I was cynical, I would suggest this method of working was deliberately exclusionary. As several other participants know from their membership of another extremely important and potentially controversial WG, there is another, better, way. But that would incompatible with the self-created urgency. I am beginning to become seriously worried that major changes will be made to the ICANN structure and IANA relationship without the time for due consideration, just because there's a US Presidential election in the office. On 07/29/2015 09:05 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
I have a previous engagement at 17:00 UTC.
And as previously I object against having 2 or more calls on the same day.
greetings, el
On 2015-07-29 08:23, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
The poll is now closed. Staff will proceed to schedule _two calls for Thursday 30 July_:
* 11:00 – 13:00 UTC * 17:00 – 19:00 UTC (this call may need to be extended depending on progress made)
Please look forward to calendar notices. The Agenda will follow later today.
Best, Grace [...]
Nigel, What follows is totally my personal opinion. I am less than a mere participant, having joined this conversation essentially too late to be meaningfully informed and involved. However, I do share with you the magnitude of the changes that are being proposed, along with inadequate time to explore their ramifications. I would rather see a solid governance structure for the future and a delayed transition as opposed to a transition that meets the current deadline and a a untested and incomplete governance structure that seriously harms the organization. In the 1970s Fred Brooks, the designer of the IBM 360 series, wrote a book called "The Mythical Man Month," Its very good reading, with application to a lot of current day issues. One of its chapters is titled, "There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over." I worry that this will be the outcome of the current CCWG exercise. George On Jul 29, 2015, at 4:27 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
As a mere participant I have found it almost impossible to join the calls due to the vast number of them and the release of important documents no more than hours before.
If I was cynical, I would suggest this method of working was deliberately exclusionary.
As several other participants know from their membership of another extremely important and potentially controversial WG, there is another, better, way.
But that would incompatible with the self-created urgency.
I am beginning to become seriously worried that major changes will be made to the ICANN structure and IANA relationship without the time for due consideration, just because there's a US Presidential election in the office.
On 07/29/2015 09:05 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
I have a previous engagement at 17:00 UTC.
And as previously I object against having 2 or more calls on the same day.
greetings, el
On 2015-07-29 08:23, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
The poll is now closed. Staff will proceed to schedule _two calls for Thursday 30 July_:
* 11:00 – 13:00 UTC * 17:00 – 19:00 UTC (this call may need to be extended depending on progress made)
Please look forward to calendar notices. The Agenda will follow later today.
Best, Grace [...]
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Some members share your concern with the haste and lack of (in my mind) careful reflection on the impact of some of the changes (perhaps different ones than you are concerned with, perhaps the same). The Mythical Man Month is one of my bibles! That section of the book includes the sentence "It is a very humbling experience to make a multimillion-dollar mistake, but it is also very memorable." Those were 1964 dollars that Brooks was talking about, and he woefully underestimated the impact in the 1975 book. What is at stake here is a lot more than money. I hope we will not have such memories. Alan At 29/07/2015 07:21 AM, George Sadowsky wrote:
Nigel,
What follows is totally my personal opinion.
I am less than a mere participant, having joined this conversation essentially too late to be meaningfully informed and involved.
However, I do share with you the magnitude of the changes that are being proposed, along with inadequate time to explore their ramifications. I would rather see a solid governance structure for the future and a delayed transition as opposed to a transition that meets the current deadline and a a untested and incomplete governance structure that seriously harms the organization.
In the 1970s Fred Brooks, the designer of the IBM 360 series, wrote a book called "The Mythical Man Month," Its very good reading, with application to a lot of current day issues. One of its chapters is titled, "There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over." I worry that this will be the outcome of the current CCWG exercise.
George
On Jul 29, 2015, at 4:27 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
As a mere participant I have found it almost impossible to join the calls due to the vast number of them and the release of important documents no more than hours before.
If I was cynical, I would suggest this method of working was deliberately exclusionary.
As several other participants know from their membership of another extremely important and potentially controversial WG, there is another, better, way.
But that would incompatible with the self-created urgency.
I am beginning to become seriously worried that major changes will be made to the ICANN structure and IANA relationship without the time for due consideration, just because there's a US Presidential election in the office.
On 07/29/2015 09:05 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
I have a previous engagement at 17:00 UTC.
And as previously I object against having 2 or more calls on the same day.
greetings, el
On 2015-07-29 08:23, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
The poll is now closed. Staff will proceed to schedule _two calls for Thursday 30 July_:
* 11:00 13:00 UTC * 17:00 19:00 UTC (this call may need to be extended depending on progress made)
Please look forward to calendar notices. The Agenda will follow later today.
Best, Grace [...]
_______________________________________________ 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
George, I mentioned that possibility on the call with the board. Fadi suggested we’re trying to do too much during the transition. Given the relative importance of building a better ICANN to the largely symbolic gesture of an IANA transition, if we are unable to reach consensus, the answer clearly is a delayed transition. That said, I wouldn’t want to lose momentum on this discussion or the impetus that the NTIA announcement has provided. That’s always the balance. So the question is whether we can delay the transition and maintain momentum on the far more important accountability exercise. Jonathan On 7/29/15, 7:21 AM, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of George Sadowsky" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of george.sadowsky@gmail.com> wrote:
Nigel,
What follows is totally my personal opinion.
I am less than a mere participant, having joined this conversation essentially too late to be meaningfully informed and involved.
However, I do share with you the magnitude of the changes that are being proposed, along with inadequate time to explore their ramifications. I would rather see a solid governance structure for the future and a delayed transition as opposed to a transition that meets the current deadline and a a untested and incomplete governance structure that seriously harms the organization.
In the 1970s Fred Brooks, the designer of the IBM 360 series, wrote a book called "The Mythical Man Month," Its very good reading, with application to a lot of current day issues. One of its chapters is titled, "There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over." I worry that this will be the outcome of the current CCWG exercise.
George
On Jul 29, 2015, at 4:27 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
As a mere participant I have found it almost impossible to join the calls due to the vast number of them and the release of important documents no more than hours before.
If I was cynical, I would suggest this method of working was deliberately exclusionary.
As several other participants know from their membership of another extremely important and potentially controversial WG, there is another, better, way.
But that would incompatible with the self-created urgency.
I am beginning to become seriously worried that major changes will be made to the ICANN structure and IANA relationship without the time for due consideration, just because there's a US Presidential election in the office.
On 07/29/2015 09:05 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
I have a previous engagement at 17:00 UTC.
And as previously I object against having 2 or more calls on the same day.
greetings, el
On 2015-07-29 08:23, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
The poll is now closed. Staff will proceed to schedule _two calls for Thursday 30 July_:
* 11:00 – 13:00 UTC * 17:00 – 19:00 UTC (this call may need to be extended depending on progress made)
Please look forward to calendar notices. The Agenda will follow later today.
Best, Grace [...]
_______________________________________________ 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
On Sep 11, 2015, at 4:28 PM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
George, I mentioned that possibility on the call with the board. Fadi suggested we’re trying to do too much during the transition. Given the relative importance of building a better ICANN to the largely symbolic gesture of an IANA transition, if we are unable to reach consensus, the answer clearly is a delayed transition. That said, I wouldn’t want to lose momentum on this discussion or the impetus that the NTIA announcement has provided. That’s always the balance. So the question is whether we can delay the transition and maintain momentum on the far more important accountability exercise. Jonathan
On 7/29/15, 7:21 AM, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of George Sadowsky" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of george.sadowsky@gmail.com> wrote:
Nigel,
What follows is totally my personal opinion.
I am less than a mere participant, having joined this conversation essentially too late to be meaningfully informed and involved.
However, I do share with you the magnitude of the changes that are being proposed, along with inadequate time to explore their ramifications. I would rather see a solid governance structure for the future and a delayed transition as opposed to a transition that meets the current deadline and a a untested and incomplete governance structure that seriously harms the organization.
In the 1970s Fred Brooks, the designer of the IBM 360 series, wrote a book called "The Mythical Man Month," Its very good reading, with application to a lot of current day issues. One of its chapters is titled, "There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over." I worry that this will be the outcome of the current CCWG exercise.
George
On Jul 29, 2015, at 4:27 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
As a mere participant I have found it almost impossible to join the calls due to the vast number of them and the release of important documents no more than hours before.
If I was cynical, I would suggest this method of working was deliberately exclusionary.
As several other participants know from their membership of another extremely important and potentially controversial WG, there is another, better, way.
But that would incompatible with the self-created urgency.
I am beginning to become seriously worried that major changes will be made to the ICANN structure and IANA relationship without the time for due consideration, just because there's a US Presidential election in the office.
On 07/29/2015 09:05 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
I have a previous engagement at 17:00 UTC.
And as previously I object against having 2 or more calls on the same day.
greetings, el
On 2015-07-29 08:23, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
The poll is now closed. Staff will proceed to schedule _two calls for Thursday 30 July_:
* 11:00 – 13:00 UTC * 17:00 – 19:00 UTC (this call may need to be extended depending on progress made)
Please look forward to calendar notices. The Agenda will follow later today.
Best, Grace [...]
_______________________________________________ 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
[sorry for the last message - hit the send button in error] Jonathan, I noticed your reference during the call to the possibility of delay. I am of the opinion that there is still a possibility of having the proposal achieve a state that will allow the transition to move forward. As a first step, let's see how the public comments view the situation. Then perhaps we'll have opportunities to interact in the near future that will help the process along toward consensus. I only hope that if we need to continue the momentum, we can do it at a speed that allows everyone to recapture at least a part of their pre-CCWG private life. George
On Sep 11, 2015, at 4:28 PM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
George, I mentioned that possibility on the call with the board. Fadi suggested we’re trying to do too much during the transition. Given the relative importance of building a better ICANN to the largely symbolic gesture of an IANA transition, if we are unable to reach consensus, the answer clearly is a delayed transition. That said, I wouldn’t want to lose momentum on this discussion or the impetus that the NTIA announcement has provided. That’s always the balance. So the question is whether we can delay the transition and maintain momentum on the far more important accountability exercise. Jonathan
On 7/29/15, 7:21 AM, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of George Sadowsky" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of george.sadowsky@gmail.com> wrote:
Nigel,
What follows is totally my personal opinion.
I am less than a mere participant, having joined this conversation essentially too late to be meaningfully informed and involved.
However, I do share with you the magnitude of the changes that are being proposed, along with inadequate time to explore their ramifications. I would rather see a solid governance structure for the future and a delayed transition as opposed to a transition that meets the current deadline and a a untested and incomplete governance structure that seriously harms the organization.
In the 1970s Fred Brooks, the designer of the IBM 360 series, wrote a book called "The Mythical Man Month," Its very good reading, with application to a lot of current day issues. One of its chapters is titled, "There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over." I worry that this will be the outcome of the current CCWG exercise.
George
On Jul 29, 2015, at 4:27 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
As a mere participant I have found it almost impossible to join the calls due to the vast number of them and the release of important documents no more than hours before.
If I was cynical, I would suggest this method of working was deliberately exclusionary.
As several other participants know from their membership of another extremely important and potentially controversial WG, there is another, better, way.
But that would incompatible with the self-created urgency.
I am beginning to become seriously worried that major changes will be made to the ICANN structure and IANA relationship without the time for due consideration, just because there's a US Presidential election in the office.
On 07/29/2015 09:05 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
I have a previous engagement at 17:00 UTC.
And as previously I object against having 2 or more calls on the same day.
greetings, el
On 2015-07-29 08:23, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
The poll is now closed. Staff will proceed to schedule _two calls for Thursday 30 July_:
* 11:00 – 13:00 UTC * 17:00 – 19:00 UTC (this call may need to be extended depending on progress made)
Please look forward to calendar notices. The Agenda will follow later today.
Best, Grace [...]
_______________________________________________ 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
Jonathan, can you please do wonders to my blood pressure and refrain from mentioning that Chehadé Waffler in correspondence that I am privy too? greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Sep 11, 2015, at 22:28, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
George, I mentioned that possibility on the call with the board. Fadi suggested we’re trying to do too much during the transition. Given the relative importance of building a better ICANN to the largely symbolic gesture of an IANA transition, if we are unable to reach consensus, the answer clearly is a delayed transition. That said, I wouldn’t want to lose momentum on this discussion or the impetus that the NTIA announcement has provided. That’s always the balance. So the question is whether we can delay the transition and maintain momentum on the far more important accountability exercise. Jonathan
On 7/29/15, 7:21 AM, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of George Sadowsky" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of george.sadowsky@gmail.com> wrote:
Nigel,
What follows is totally my personal opinion.
I am less than a mere participant, having joined this conversation essentially too late to be meaningfully informed and involved.
However, I do share with you the magnitude of the changes that are being proposed, along with inadequate time to explore their ramifications. I would rather see a solid governance structure for the future and a delayed transition as opposed to a transition that meets the current deadline and a a untested and incomplete governance structure that seriously harms the organization.
In the 1970s Fred Brooks, the designer of the IBM 360 series, wrote a book called "The Mythical Man Month," Its very good reading, with application to a lot of current day issues. One of its chapters is titled, "There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over." I worry that this will be the outcome of the current CCWG exercise.
George
On Jul 29, 2015, at 4:27 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
As a mere participant I have found it almost impossible to join the calls due to the vast number of them and the release of important documents no more than hours before.
If I was cynical, I would suggest this method of working was deliberately exclusionary.
As several other participants know from their membership of another extremely important and potentially controversial WG, there is another, better, way.
But that would incompatible with the self-created urgency.
I am beginning to become seriously worried that major changes will be made to the ICANN structure and IANA relationship without the time for due consideration, just because there's a US Presidential election in the office.
On 07/29/2015 09:05 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote: I have a previous engagement at 17:00 UTC.
And as previously I object against having 2 or more calls on the same day.
greetings, el
On 2015-07-29 08:23, Grace Abuhamad wrote: Dear all,
The poll is now closed. Staff will proceed to schedule _two calls for Thursday 30 July_:
* 11:00 – 13:00 UTC * 17:00 – 19:00 UTC (this call may need to be extended depending on progress made)
Please look forward to calendar notices. The Agenda will follow later today.
Best, Grace [...]
_______________________________________________ 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
One solution could be to unsubscribe or better still use/create a mail client that runs a filter on the Chehadé occurrences. Cheers! Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 12 Sep 2015 06:12, "Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Jonathan,
can you please do wonders to my blood pressure and refrain from mentioning that Chehadé Waffler in correspondence that I am privy too?
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Sep 11, 2015, at 22:28, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
George, I mentioned that possibility on the call with the board. Fadi suggested we’re trying to do too much during the transition. Given the relative importance of building a better ICANN to the largely symbolic gesture of an IANA transition, if we are unable to reach consensus, the answer clearly is a delayed transition. That said, I wouldn’t want to lose momentum on this discussion or the impetus that the NTIA announcement has provided. That’s always the balance. So the question is whether we can delay the transition and maintain momentum on the far more important accountability exercise. Jonathan
On 7/29/15, 7:21 AM, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of George Sadowsky" < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of george.sadowsky@gmail.com> wrote:
Nigel,
What follows is totally my personal opinion.
I am less than a mere participant, having joined this conversation essentially too late to be meaningfully informed and involved.
However, I do share with you the magnitude of the changes that are being proposed, along with inadequate time to explore their ramifications. I would rather see a solid governance structure for the future and a delayed transition as opposed to a transition that meets the current deadline and a a untested and incomplete governance structure that seriously harms the organization.
In the 1970s Fred Brooks, the designer of the IBM 360 series, wrote a book called "The Mythical Man Month," Its very good reading, with application to a lot of current day issues. One of its chapters is titled, "There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over." I worry that this will be the outcome of the current CCWG exercise.
George
On Jul 29, 2015, at 4:27 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
As a mere participant I have found it almost impossible to join the calls due to the vast number of them and the release of important documents no more than hours before.
If I was cynical, I would suggest this method of working was deliberately exclusionary.
As several other participants know from their membership of another extremely important and potentially controversial WG, there is another, better, way.
But that would incompatible with the self-created urgency.
I am beginning to become seriously worried that major changes will be made to the ICANN structure and IANA relationship without the time for due consideration, just because there's a US Presidential election in the office.
On 07/29/2015 09:05 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote: I have a previous engagement at 17:00 UTC.
And as previously I object against having 2 or more calls on the same day.
greetings, el
On 2015-07-29 08:23, Grace Abuhamad wrote: Dear all,
The poll is now closed. Staff will proceed to schedule _two calls for Thursday 30 July_:
* 11:00 – 13:00 UTC * 17:00 – 19:00 UTC (this call may need to be extended depending on progress made)
Please look forward to calendar notices. The Agenda will follow later today.
Best, Grace [...]
_______________________________________________ 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
In an ideal world he wouldn't be such a waffler. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Sep 12, 2015, at 09:03, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
One solution could be to unsubscribe or better still use/create a mail client that runs a filter on the Chehadé occurrences.
Cheers!
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 12 Sep 2015 06:12, "Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <el@lisse.na> wrote: Jonathan,
can you please do wonders to my blood pressure and refrain from mentioning that Chehadé Waffler in correspondence that I am privy too?
greetings, el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Sep 11, 2015, at 22:28, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
George, I mentioned that possibility on the call with the board. Fadi suggested we’re trying to do too much during the transition. Given the relative importance of building a better ICANN to the largely symbolic gesture of an IANA transition, if we are unable to reach consensus, the answer clearly is a delayed transition. That said, I wouldn’t want to lose momentum on this discussion or the impetus that the NTIA announcement has provided. That’s always the balance. So the question is whether we can delay the transition and maintain momentum on the far more important accountability exercise. Jonathan
On 7/29/15, 7:21 AM, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of George Sadowsky" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of george.sadowsky@gmail.com> wrote:
Nigel,
What follows is totally my personal opinion.
I am less than a mere participant, having joined this conversation essentially too late to be meaningfully informed and involved.
However, I do share with you the magnitude of the changes that are being proposed, along with inadequate time to explore their ramifications. I would rather see a solid governance structure for the future and a delayed transition as opposed to a transition that meets the current deadline and a a untested and incomplete governance structure that seriously harms the organization.
In the 1970s Fred Brooks, the designer of the IBM 360 series, wrote a book called "The Mythical Man Month," Its very good reading, with application to a lot of current day issues. One of its chapters is titled, "There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over." I worry that this will be the outcome of the current CCWG exercise.
George
On Jul 29, 2015, at 4:27 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
As a mere participant I have found it almost impossible to join the calls due to the vast number of them and the release of important documents no more than hours before.
If I was cynical, I would suggest this method of working was deliberately exclusionary.
As several other participants know from their membership of another extremely important and potentially controversial WG, there is another, better, way.
But that would incompatible with the self-created urgency.
I am beginning to become seriously worried that major changes will be made to the ICANN structure and IANA relationship without the time for due consideration, just because there's a US Presidential election in the office.
On 07/29/2015 09:05 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote: I have a previous engagement at 17:00 UTC.
And as previously I object against having 2 or more calls on the same day.
greetings, el
> On 2015-07-29 08:23, Grace Abuhamad wrote: > Dear all, > > The poll is now closed. Staff will proceed to schedule _two calls > for Thursday 30 July_: > > * 11:00 – 13:00 UTC > * 17:00 – 19:00 UTC (this call may need to be extended depending on > progress made) > > Please look forward to calendar notices. The Agenda will follow later > today. > > Best, > Grace [...]
_______________________________________________ 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
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Nigel, Why is being a "participant" relevant? As a member, I find it extremely hard to make some calls and in fact, missed one yesterday because it exactly overlapped with a meeting I was chairing. Sometimes attendance is easy, sometimes it required moving mountains, and sometimes I simply opt out for various reasons. Alan At 29/07/2015 04:27 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
As a mere participant I have found it almost impossible to join the calls due to the vast number of them and the release of important documents no more than hours before.
If I was cynical, I would suggest this method of working was deliberately exclusionary.
As several other participants know from their membership of another extremely important and potentially controversial WG, there is another, better, way.
But that would incompatible with the self-created urgency.
I am beginning to become seriously worried that major changes will be made to the ICANN structure and IANA relationship without the time for due consideration, just because there's a US Presidential election in the office.
On 07/29/2015 09:05 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
I have a previous engagement at 17:00 UTC.
And as previously I object against having 2 or more calls on the same day.
greetings, el
On 2015-07-29 08:23, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
The poll is now closed. Staff will proceed to schedule _two calls for Thursday 30 July_:
* 11:00 13:00 UTC * 17:00 19:00 UTC (this call may need to be extended depending on progress made)
Please look forward to calendar notices. The Agenda will follow later today.
Best, Grace [...]
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Nigel, you could be cynical, or you could not be. I would far rather we had had more time to do this process. But the powers that be have imposed a timeline on us. 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. Please don't assert there's some kind of conspiracy here, because I don't know anyone who thinks that the timeframes for our work have been perfect. The participants' best efforts, and the excellent legal advice we have had, gives me great confidence that the proposal we are fining up on will not have serious unintended consequences. Taking another year would not mean an infinitely better proposal. The writing might end up more elegant, but the analysis and the project is the work already of years of reflection and debate by many groups. I'll close with a quite dull procedural point - the documents that you are not getting much time to review for these calls are generally a) making tiny, incremental changes from previous versions, and b) have been substantially the same for weeks. Nothing is being "sprung" on anyone right now. best Jordan On 29 July 2015 at 20:27, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
As a mere participant I have found it almost impossible to join the calls due to the vast number of them and the release of important documents no more than hours before.
If I was cynical, I would suggest this method of working was deliberately exclusionary.
As several other participants know from their membership of another extremely important and potentially controversial WG, there is another, better, way.
But that would incompatible with the self-created urgency.
I am beginning to become seriously worried that major changes will be made to the ICANN structure and IANA relationship without the time for due consideration, just because there's a US Presidential election in the office.
On 07/29/2015 09:05 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
I have a previous engagement at 17:00 UTC.
And as previously I object against having 2 or more calls on the same day.
greetings, el
On 2015-07-29 08:23, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
The poll is now closed. Staff will proceed to schedule _two calls for Thursday 30 July_:
* 11:00 – 13:00 UTC * 17:00 – 19:00 UTC (this call may need to be extended depending on progress made)
Please look forward to calendar notices. The Agenda will follow later today.
Best, Grace
[...]
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *
I agree fully with Jordan’s comments. The CCWG has done remarkable work in a compressed timeframe that was not of our making. Let’s continue to work together in the collegial manner we’ve had over the last many months. The pressure is on, but we’ve got to stick together. We also need to remember that the community asked for this important opportunity and responsibility. In fact, last August, we demanded it. In October 2014 the ICANN Board agreed and handed us the accountability track. It’s up to us to deliver. If we keep working collaboratively, I’m confident we’ll produce an acceptable consensus proposal that meets the needs of NTIA and the community in an acceptable timeframe. Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 9:39 PM To: Nigel Roberts Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Call(s) on Thursday Nigel, you could be cynical, or you could not be. I would far rather we had had more time to do this process. But the powers that be have imposed a timeline on us. 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. Please don't assert there's some kind of conspiracy here, because I don't know anyone who thinks that the timeframes for our work have been perfect. The participants' best efforts, and the excellent legal advice we have had, gives me great confidence that the proposal we are fining up on will not have serious unintended consequences. Taking another year would not mean an infinitely better proposal. The writing might end up more elegant, but the analysis and the project is the work already of years of reflection and debate by many groups. I'll close with a quite dull procedural point - the documents that you are not getting much time to review for these calls are generally a) making tiny, incremental changes from previous versions, and b) have been substantially the same for weeks. Nothing is being "sprung" on anyone right now. best Jordan On 29 July 2015 at 20:27, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote: As a mere participant I have found it almost impossible to join the calls due to the vast number of them and the release of important documents no more than hours before. If I was cynical, I would suggest this method of working was deliberately exclusionary. As several other participants know from their membership of another extremely important and potentially controversial WG, there is another, better, way. But that would incompatible with the self-created urgency. I am beginning to become seriously worried that major changes will be made to the ICANN structure and IANA relationship without the time for due consideration, just because there's a US Presidential election in the office. On 07/29/2015 09:05 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote: I have a previous engagement at 17:00 UTC. And as previously I object against having 2 or more calls on the same day. greetings, el On 2015-07-29 08:23, Grace Abuhamad wrote: Dear all, The poll is now closed. Staff will proceed to schedule _two calls for Thursday 30 July_: * 11:00 – 13:00 UTC * 17:00 – 19:00 UTC (this call may need to be extended depending on progress made) Please look forward to calendar notices. The Agenda will follow later today. Best, Grace [...] _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet
Hi, Will add my +2 to this as well. I must confess it's been quite a 100m race and catching up has been quite challenging as we all have varying access to resources that would ensure participation. I commend all those who have been on this work in "absolute" voluntary status. As the second report gets released, it is my hope that there will be summary version that highlights the key changes proposed (referencing their respective sections in the main report) Finally, will be good to know the methodology that would be applied in reviewing the comments from PC. Regards On 29 Jul 2015 11:41 pm, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
I agree fully with Jordan’s comments.
The CCWG has done remarkable work in a compressed timeframe that was not of our making.
Let’s continue to work together in the collegial manner we’ve had over the last many months. The pressure is on, but we’ve got to stick together.
We also need to remember that the community asked for this important opportunity and responsibility. In fact, last August, we demanded it. In October 2014 the ICANN Board agreed and handed us the accountability track. It’s up to us to deliver.
If we keep working collaboratively, I’m confident we’ll produce an acceptable consensus proposal that meets the needs of NTIA and the community in an acceptable timeframe.
Regards,
Keith
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter *Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2015 9:39 PM *To:* Nigel Roberts *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Call(s) on Thursday
Nigel, you could be cynical, or you could not be.
I would far rather we had had more time to do this process. But the powers that be have imposed a timeline on us. 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.
Please don't assert there's some kind of conspiracy here, because I don't know anyone who thinks that the timeframes for our work have been perfect.
The participants' best efforts, and the excellent legal advice we have had, gives me great confidence that the proposal we are fining up on will not have serious unintended consequences.
Taking another year would not mean an infinitely better proposal. The writing might end up more elegant, but the analysis and the project is the work already of years of reflection and debate by many groups.
I'll close with a quite dull procedural point - the documents that you are not getting much time to review for these calls are generally a) making tiny, incremental changes from previous versions, and b) have been substantially the same for weeks. Nothing is being "sprung" on anyone right now.
best
Jordan
On 29 July 2015 at 20:27, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
As a mere participant I have found it almost impossible to join the calls due to the vast number of them and the release of important documents no more than hours before.
If I was cynical, I would suggest this method of working was deliberately exclusionary.
As several other participants know from their membership of another extremely important and potentially controversial WG, there is another, better, way.
But that would incompatible with the self-created urgency.
I am beginning to become seriously worried that major changes will be made to the ICANN structure and IANA relationship without the time for due consideration, just because there's a US Presidential election in the office.
On 07/29/2015 09:05 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
I have a previous engagement at 17:00 UTC.
And as previously I object against having 2 or more calls on the same day.
greetings, el
On 2015-07-29 08:23, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
The poll is now closed. Staff will proceed to schedule _two calls for Thursday 30 July_:
* 11:00 – 13:00 UTC * 17:00 – 19:00 UTC (this call may need to be extended depending on progress made)
Please look forward to calendar notices. The Agenda will follow later today.
Best, Grace
[...]
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: 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
This translates into: Too Fast, too complicated, driven by lobbyists on the clock. el On 2015-07-30 08:49, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hi,
Will add my +2 to this as well. I must confess it's been quite a 100m race and catching up has been quite challenging as we all have varying access to resources that would ensure participation. I commend all those who have been on this work in "absolute" voluntary status.
As the second report gets released, it is my hope that there will be summary version that highlights the key changes proposed (referencing their respective sections in the main report)
Finally, will be good to know the methodology that would be applied in reviewing the comments from PC.
Regards [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Jordan, you are quite wrong. Neither the USG nor the technical Community has imposed a deadline, nor has ICANN, but even if it had it didn't matter. This is evidently quite self imposed, predominantly by the Co-Chairs, and to be honest I am neither clear about their motivation, or do I particularly care. That certain interests dominate the proceedings is reflected in the voluminous record. This convoluted, obfuscated rush job is not going to achieve the mandate set by the Charter. Taking more time to refine its details would most certainly not achieve much, I grant you that, but then I personally have believed for a while and stated so, that we are doing this wrong. And your last paragraph plain does not make sense. If they have been same why are we having numerous calls this week and even a F2F meeting in Paris about them, then? I doubt you would accept such a methodology if your company depended on the outcome. And, the only reason why .NZ doesn't is that is fortunate in that it has an understanding with its very reasonable government. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jul 29, 2015, at 20:39, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Nigel, you could be cynical, or you could not be.
I would far rather we had had more time to do this process. But the powers that be have imposed a timeline on us. 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.
Please don't assert there's some kind of conspiracy here, because I don't know anyone who thinks that the timeframes for our work have been perfect.
The participants' best efforts, and the excellent legal advice we have had, gives me great confidence that the proposal we are fining up on will not have serious unintended consequences.
Taking another year would not mean an infinitely better proposal. The writing might end up more elegant, but the analysis and the project is the work already of years of reflection and debate by many groups.
I'll close with a quite dull procedural point - the documents that you are not getting much time to review for these calls are generally a) making tiny, incremental changes from previous versions, and b) have been substantially the same for weeks. Nothing is being "sprung" on anyone right now.
best Jordan
On 29 July 2015 at 20:27, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote: As a mere participant I have found it almost impossible to join the calls due to the vast number of them and the release of important documents no more than hours before.
If I was cynical, I would suggest this method of working was deliberately exclusionary.
As several other participants know from their membership of another extremely important and potentially controversial WG, there is another, better, way.
But that would incompatible with the self-created urgency.
I am beginning to become seriously worried that major changes will be made to the ICANN structure and IANA relationship without the time for due consideration, just because there's a US Presidential election in the office.
On 07/29/2015 09:05 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote: I have a previous engagement at 17:00 UTC.
And as previously I object against having 2 or more calls on the same day.
greetings, el
On 2015-07-29 08:23, Grace Abuhamad wrote: Dear all,
The poll is now closed. Staff will proceed to schedule _two calls for Thursday 30 July_:
* 11:00 – 13:00 UTC * 17:00 – 19:00 UTC (this call may need to be extended depending on progress made)
Please look forward to calendar notices. The Agenda will follow later today.
Best, Grace [...]
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: 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
Hi Eberhard, I am happy to accept we disagree on this point regarding the reason for the pace of this process. I am confident of my position. On the final para, in any document editing process that involves 160+ people, there are certain choices. Either to do things openly and iteratively, and thereby consuming a lot of time, or instead to send some wise heads away to do the drafting and perfect things. We're doing it the way we are obliged to by our agreed charter process and by the demands the community has that these things be done openly. It may be presumptuous, but I suspect you would object to the second option.... :-) best, Jordan On 30 July 2015 at 11:59, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Jordan,
you are quite wrong.
Neither the USG nor the technical Community has imposed a deadline, nor has ICANN, but even if it had it didn't matter.
This is evidently quite self imposed, predominantly by the Co-Chairs, and to be honest I am neither clear about their motivation, or do I particularly care. That certain interests dominate the proceedings is reflected in the voluminous record.
This convoluted, obfuscated rush job is not going to achieve the mandate set by the Charter.
Taking more time to refine its details would most certainly not achieve much, I grant you that, but then I personally have believed for a while and stated so, that we are doing this wrong.
And your last paragraph plain does not make sense. If they have been same why are we having numerous calls this week and even a F2F meeting in Paris about them, then?
I doubt you would accept such a methodology if your company depended on the outcome. And, the only reason why .NZ doesn't is that is fortunate in that it has an understanding with its very reasonable government.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jul 29, 2015, at 20:39, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Nigel, you could be cynical, or you could not be.
I would far rather we had had more time to do this process. But the powers that be have imposed a timeline on us. 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.
Please don't assert there's some kind of conspiracy here, because I don't know anyone who thinks that the timeframes for our work have been perfect.
The participants' best efforts, and the excellent legal advice we have had, gives me great confidence that the proposal we are fining up on will not have serious unintended consequences.
Taking another year would not mean an infinitely better proposal. The writing might end up more elegant, but the analysis and the project is the work already of years of reflection and debate by many groups.
I'll close with a quite dull procedural point - the documents that you are not getting much time to review for these calls are generally a) making tiny, incremental changes from previous versions, and b) have been substantially the same for weeks. Nothing is being "sprung" on anyone right now.
best Jordan
<snip>
Jordan In all good will, I'm genuinely puzzled. It seems to me that you are being either naive or disingenuous in below statement. I refer to Chris Lahatte's statement on a procedural point that is anything but dull. If there is a dearth of time for review, that is exactly when the major changes are slipped in, that are often not noticed until after its too late. So while I will 100% accept that the below description is possible, and even very like to be correct, running the show in this way is procedurally unfair as it excludes oversight and does not *ensure*, in a transparent way that nothing is being sprung on anyone. Put another way, I have to take your (or someone else's) word for it.
I'll close with a quite dull procedural point - the documents that you are not getting much time to review for these calls are generally a) making tiny, incremental changes from previous versions, and b) have been substantially the same for weeks. Nothing is being "sprung" on anyone right now.
My point was quite the opposite to "trust us, we know what we're doing" :-) If large changes were being made on this basis, then things could easily be slipped in. The fact that most of the text is stable, that all changes are tracked, and that hundreds of people are looking at the documents, gives me great confidence that if any of the authors or rapporteurs or staff or cochair tried to pull something in that was not agreed text.... ..... it would be caught, the perpetrator would be hung out to dry, and the group would be seriously disrupted. So what I am really saying is, "this isn't as complex as it looks." In my version of a perfect world, we would have had two months to deliver the work we have done since Paris. But we've discussed our disagreement about the schedule elsewhere. J On 30 July 2015 at 20:22, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Jordan
In all good will, I'm genuinely puzzled. It seems to me that you are being either naive or disingenuous in below statement.
I refer to Chris Lahatte's statement on a procedural point that is anything but dull.
If there is a dearth of time for review, that is exactly when the major changes are slipped in, that are often not noticed until after its too late.
So while I will 100% accept that the below description is possible, and even very like to be correct, running the show in this way is procedurally unfair as it excludes oversight and does not *ensure*, in a transparent way that nothing is being sprung on anyone.
Put another way, I have to take your (or someone else's) word for it.
I'll close with a quite dull procedural point - the documents that you are
not getting much time to review for these calls are generally a) making tiny, incremental changes from previous versions, and b) have been substantially the same for weeks. Nothing is being "sprung" on anyone right now.
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *
participants (10)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Dr Eberhard Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
-
Drazek, Keith -
George Sadowsky -
Grace Abuhamad -
Jonathan Zuck -
Jordan Carter -
Nigel Roberts -
Seun Ojedeji