Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A path to Dublin and beyond
One could interpret such a position in a more nefarious way. Specifically, "We are presenting this proposal to you because we think you will like it. As soon as you accept it and the transition happens, we will change it all to something we didn't think you would have liked." Clearly not a strategy for success. Alan At 04/10/2015 06:01 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:
If I was a decision-maker on this proposal - either the ICANN Board, NTIA or indeed the Congress itself, or even an ICANN SO or AC - I would be very uncomfortable at anything which suggested "we will reevaluate the model after the transition, because we aren't sure this is a durable accountability settlement".
We have ALWAYS described WS1 as the first step in a longer process of continuous improvement. Nothing nefarious there. Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Alan Greenberg<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: 10/4/2015 7:28 PM To: Jordan Carter<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Cc: Accountability Cross Community<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A path to Dublin and beyond One could interpret such a position in a more nefarious way. Specifically, "We are presenting this proposal to you because we think you will like it. As soon as you accept it and the transition happens, we will change it all to something we didn't think you would have liked." Clearly not a strategy for success. Alan At 04/10/2015 06:01 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:
If I was a decision-maker on this proposal - either the ICANN Board, NTIA or indeed the Congress itself, or even an ICANN SO or AC - I would be very uncomfortable at anything which suggested "we will reevaluate the model after the transition, because we aren't sure this is a durable accountability settlement".
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, Well not nefarious but perhaps detrimental to finding a complete solution for WS1. Also the discussion of eliminating the WS2 process is of concern. avri On 04-Oct-15 19:45, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
We have ALWAYS described WS1 as the first step in a longer process of continuous improvement. Nothing nefarious there.
Sent from my Windows Phone ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Alan Greenberg <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: 10/4/2015 7:28 PM To: Jordan Carter <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A path to Dublin and beyond
One could interpret such a position in a more nefarious way. Specifically, "We are presenting this proposal to you because we think you will like it. As soon as you accept it and the transition happens, we will change it all to something we didn't think you would have liked."
Clearly not a strategy for success.
Alan
At 04/10/2015 06:01 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:
If I was a decision-maker on this proposal - either the ICANN Board, NTIA or indeed the Congress itself, or even an ICANN SO or AC - I would be very uncomfortable at anything which suggested "we will reevaluate the model after the transition, because we aren't sure this is a durable accountability settlement".
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Hello Avri,
Well not nefarious but perhaps detrimental to finding a complete solution for WS1. Also the discussion of eliminating the WS2 process is of concern.
One approach could be to actually plan the next 12 months after the proposal is submitted to NTIA. e.g - prioritize 4 issues for further work that have already reached rough consensus at least with respect to high level requirements - choose one issue per 3 month period and have a focussed effort to complete that issue - with detailed processes, and proposed bylaws language - plan resources in terms of travel costs (for one face-to-face meeting), legal advice (agree a budget per period) - integrate in the ICANN public meetings into the project plan We can incorporate an appropriate budget for the work into the 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 financial year You could then repeat for another 12 months (1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018)- assuming you have other stuff that needs such a focussed effort. I think at the moment we are trying to work on too many issues at once and this limits the ability for most people to really get involved in each issue. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Then let's change that Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Avri Doria<mailto:avri@acm.org> Sent: 10/4/2015 11:32 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A path to Dublin and beyond Hi, Well not nefarious but perhaps detrimental to finding a complete solution for WS1. Also the discussion of eliminating the WS2 process is of concern. avri On 04-Oct-15 19:45, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
We have ALWAYS described WS1 as the first step in a longer process of continuous improvement. Nothing nefarious there.
Sent from my Windows Phone ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Alan Greenberg <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: 10/4/2015 7:28 PM To: Jordan Carter <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A path to Dublin and beyond
One could interpret such a position in a more nefarious way. Specifically, "We are presenting this proposal to you because we think you will like it. As soon as you accept it and the transition happens, we will change it all to something we didn't think you would have liked."
Clearly not a strategy for success.
Alan
At 04/10/2015 06:01 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:
If I was a decision-maker on this proposal - either the ICANN Board, NTIA or indeed the Congress itself, or even an ICANN SO or AC - I would be very uncomfortable at anything which suggested "we will reevaluate the model after the transition, because we aren't sure this is a durable accountability settlement".
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
Jonathan Zuck