Quality of our proposal will suffer from this pace that leaves no time for consideration and meaningful evaluation
I must join in the chorus of voices saying that this compressed timeline is not going to produce a quality proposal. Sure, we can slap something together, which only a small handful have thought about, but we won't get anywhere close to doing our best work, or even a good proposal at this pace. We just don't have the time to think through all of the issues that must be thought through and to have answers to the questions that are foundational to the rest of our work. The confusion about what is actually being proposed and then advice that doesn't address what is under consideration is but one example of how the quality of our work is suffering by the frenetic pace. Either this group is in charge of its own processes, or it isn't. It is beginning to look like the group is not in control, as imaginary imposed "deadlines" are the main driving consideration for us now. Not quality. This is a grave mistake. We simply must take the time to think all of this through and engage with the community on these crucial matters. That is the only way to get a quality result. The rush job to meet imaginary deadlines is creating greater problems every day and will only exacerbate as we go forward. I remain committed to participating in a dozen or so calls a week, but I'm under no illusion that this last-minute cram job will be any more effective at building global governance institutions than it is to college freshman learning on the night before their final exam. Best, Robin
hi all I wanted to share my thoughts on this topic as many others have done. Overall I am uncomfortable with the overall pace of our work, but think we can make it work for us, for the cwg, and for the community. I only think this because we have changed our timetable and our process to give ourselves much more time - from a final comment doc being finalised on 6 April to a second comment doc being finalised in July, and a whole additional ICANN meeting cycle to talk with the community. While the detail of the work we are doing is complex, we do have time to do it right. We also have given ourselves time, in my view, to share our core direction and proposals with the community in the right level of detail by the end of this month. It is vital that we make clear what this first comment document is soliciting - an affirmation of direction or a production of alternative ideas for us to explore. I would like a more gentle pace, and I would like more time -- we are not at the point right now where more time wont help. But I also want this transition to happen, and I don't want our accountability work to slow it unnecessarily. I've seen enough of the legal comment and had enough conversations with you all to be confident of what we are proposing as a legitimate package to ask our communities about. I don't especially like it, but I have not seen divides or gaps of a scale that demand another schedule rewrite. None of this should be taken as a reflection on those who have a different view - I'm just sharing my opinion. Cheers Jordan On Tuesday, 14 April 2015, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I must join in the chorus of voices saying that this compressed timeline is not going to produce a quality proposal. Sure, we can slap something together, which only a small handful have thought about, but we won't get anywhere close to doing our best work, or even a good proposal at this pace.
We just don't have the time to think through all of the issues that must be thought through and to have answers to the questions that are foundational to the rest of our work. The confusion about what is actually being proposed and then advice that doesn't address what is under consideration is but one example of how the quality of our work is suffering by the frenetic pace.
Either this group is in charge of its own processes, or it isn't. It is beginning to look like the group is not in control, as imaginary imposed "deadlines" are the main driving consideration for us now. Not quality. This is a grave mistake. We simply must take the time to think all of this through and engage with the community on these crucial matters. That is the only way to get a quality result. The rush job to meet imaginary deadlines is creating greater problems every day and will only exacerbate as we go forward.
I remain committed to participating in a dozen or so calls a week, but I'm under no illusion that this last-minute cram job will be any more effective at building global governance institutions than it is to college freshman learning on the night before their final exam.
Best, Robin
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
I agree with Jordan here. It's important we produce a directional document that can be shared with our respective communities. The sooner we do this, the sooner we can make adjustments if needed. We have made tremendous progress and we need to keep up the momentum, if not the pace. Thanks to all who are carrying the heaviest loads. Regards, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Apr 14, 2015, at 8:01 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: hi all I wanted to share my thoughts on this topic as many others have done. Overall I am uncomfortable with the overall pace of our work, but think we can make it work for us, for the cwg, and for the community. I only think this because we have changed our timetable and our process to give ourselves much more time - from a final comment doc being finalised on 6 April to a second comment doc being finalised in July, and a whole additional ICANN meeting cycle to talk with the community. While the detail of the work we are doing is complex, we do have time to do it right. We also have given ourselves time, in my view, to share our core direction and proposals with the community in the right level of detail by the end of this month. It is vital that we make clear what this first comment document is soliciting - an affirmation of direction or a production of alternative ideas for us to explore. I would like a more gentle pace, and I would like more time — we are not at the point right now where more time wont help. But I also want this transition to happen, and I don't want our accountability work to slow it unnecessarily. I've seen enough of the legal comment and had enough conversations with you all to be confident of what we are proposing as a legitimate package to ask our communities about. I don't especially like it, but I have not seen divides or gaps of a scale that demand another schedule rewrite. None of this should be taken as a reflection on those who have a different view - I'm just sharing my opinion. Cheers Jordan On Tuesday, 14 April 2015, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I must join in the chorus of voices saying that this compressed timeline is not going to produce a quality proposal. Sure, we can slap something together, which only a small handful have thought about, but we won't get anywhere close to doing our best work, or even a good proposal at this pace. We just don't have the time to think through all of the issues that must be thought through and to have answers to the questions that are foundational to the rest of our work. The confusion about what is actually being proposed and then advice that doesn't address what is under consideration is but one example of how the quality of our work is suffering by the frenetic pace. Either this group is in charge of its own processes, or it isn't. It is beginning to look like the group is not in control, as imaginary imposed "deadlines" are the main driving consideration for us now. Not quality. This is a grave mistake. We simply must take the time to think all of this through and engage with the community on these crucial matters. That is the only way to get a quality result. The rush job to meet imaginary deadlines is creating greater problems every day and will only exacerbate as we go forward. I remain committed to participating in a dozen or so calls a week, but I'm under no illusion that this last-minute cram job will be any more effective at building global governance institutions than it is to college freshman learning on the night before their final exam. Best, Robin -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ 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
Keith, Jordan, all, thank you for your messages. As said, we will speak to this and propose a way forward that is hopefully supported by most, if not all in the group. Best, Thomas
Am 14.04.2015 um 10:00 schrieb Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
I agree with Jordan here. It's important we produce a directional document that can be shared with our respective communities. The sooner we do this, the sooner we can make adjustments if needed. We have made tremendous progress and we need to keep up the momentum, if not the pace. Thanks to all who are carrying the heaviest loads.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 14, 2015, at 8:01 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
hi all
I wanted to share my thoughts on this topic as many others have done.
Overall I am uncomfortable with the overall pace of our work, but think we can make it work for us, for the cwg, and for the community.
I only think this because we have changed our timetable and our process to give ourselves much more time - from a final comment doc being finalised on 6 April to a second comment doc being finalised in July, and a whole additional ICANN meeting cycle to talk with the community.
While the detail of the work we are doing is complex, we do have time to do it right.
We also have given ourselves time, in my view, to share our core direction and proposals with the community in the right level of detail by the end of this month.
It is vital that we make clear what this first comment document is soliciting - an affirmation of direction or a production of alternative ideas for us to explore.
I would like a more gentle pace, and I would like more time — we are not at the point right now where more time wont help.
But I also want this transition to happen, and I don't want our accountability work to slow it unnecessarily.
I've seen enough of the legal comment and had enough conversations with you all to be confident of what we are proposing as a legitimate package to ask our communities about. I don't especially like it, but I have not seen divides or gaps of a scale that demand another schedule rewrite.
None of this should be taken as a reflection on those who have a different view - I'm just sharing my opinion.
Cheers Jordan
On Tuesday, 14 April 2015, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I must join in the chorus of voices saying that this compressed timeline is not going to produce a quality proposal. Sure, we can slap something together, which only a small handful have thought about, but we won't get anywhere close to doing our best work, or even a good proposal at this pace.
We just don't have the time to think through all of the issues that must be thought through and to have answers to the questions that are foundational to the rest of our work. The confusion about what is actually being proposed and then advice that doesn't address what is under consideration is but one example of how the quality of our work is suffering by the frenetic pace.
Either this group is in charge of its own processes, or it isn't. It is beginning to look like the group is not in control, as imaginary imposed "deadlines" are the main driving consideration for us now. Not quality. This is a grave mistake. We simply must take the time to think all of this through and engage with the community on these crucial matters. That is the only way to get a quality result. The rush job to meet imaginary deadlines is creating greater problems every day and will only exacerbate as we go forward.
I remain committed to participating in a dozen or so calls a week, but I'm under no illusion that this last-minute cram job will be any more effective at building global governance institutions than it is to college freshman learning on the night before their final exam.
Best, Robin
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ 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 <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
Hi, I agree with this. Yes, we have a lot to to do, but in many cases it is detail and tightening up the ideas. Having the comments of our myriad communities will help us know that whether are on the right track and may even give us clues on how to finish up the work. One of the things about the tail of a a project is it can go on for a very long time while every I is crossed and t dotted. Being forced to a deadline helps. As for likening this to a student's cramming for an exam, as with that student, we had time for more intense work earlier in our schedule, but it wasn't until the deadlines were looming that we really bit into the task. I support the efforts being made to meet the deadlines and do not think that this is the time to let up on the effort. avri On 14-Apr-15 04:00, Drazek, Keith wrote:
I agree with Jordan here. It's important we produce a directional document that can be shared with our respective communities. The sooner we do this, the sooner we can make adjustments if needed. We have made tremendous progress and we need to keep up the momentum, if not the pace. Thanks to all who are carrying the heaviest loads.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 14, 2015, at 8:01 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
hi all
I wanted to share my thoughts on this topic as many others have done.
Overall I am uncomfortable with the overall pace of our work, but think we can make it work for us, for the cwg, and for the community.
I only think this because we have changed our timetable and our process to give ourselves much more time - from a final comment doc being finalised on 6 April to a second comment doc being finalised in July, and a whole additional ICANN meeting cycle to talk with the community.
While the detail of the work we are doing is complex, we do have time to do it right.
We also have given ourselves time, in my view, to share our core direction and proposals with the community in the right level of detail by the end of this month.
It is vital that we make clear what this first comment document is soliciting - an affirmation of direction or a production of alternative ideas for us to explore.
I would like a more gentle pace, and I would like more time — we are not at the point right now where more time wont help.
But I also want this transition to happen, and I don't want our accountability work to slow it unnecessarily.
I've seen enough of the legal comment and had enough conversations with you all to be confident of what we are proposing as a legitimate package to ask our communities about. I don't especially like it, but I have not seen divides or gaps of a scale that demand another schedule rewrite.
None of this should be taken as a reflection on those who have a different view - I'm just sharing my opinion.
Cheers Jordan
On Tuesday, 14 April 2015, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote:
I must join in the chorus of voices saying that this compressed timeline is not going to produce a quality proposal. Sure, we can slap something together, which only a small handful have thought about, but we won't get anywhere close to doing our best work, or even a good proposal at this pace.
We just don't have the time to think through all of the issues that must be thought through and to have answers to the questions that are foundational to the rest of our work. The confusion about what is actually being proposed and then advice that doesn't address what is under consideration is but one example of how the quality of our work is suffering by the frenetic pace.
Either this group is in charge of its own processes, or it isn't. It is beginning to look like the group is not in control, as imaginary imposed "deadlines" are the main driving consideration for us now. Not quality. This is a grave mistake. We simply must take the time to think all of this through and engage with the community on these crucial matters. That is the only way to get a quality result. The rush job to meet imaginary deadlines is creating greater problems every day and will only exacerbate as we go forward.
I remain committed to participating in a dozen or so calls a week, but I'm under no illusion that this last-minute cram job will be any more effective at building global governance institutions than it is to college freshman learning on the night before their final exam.
Best, Robin
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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. http://www.avast.com
I stand in complete agreement with Robin on this matter and, in fact, this morning have expressed my concern regarding timing to staff of a minority member of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. This process seems be to driven not by CCWG members but rather by external considerations.We are in the process of rebuilding the entire scheme of a multinational private corporation and, as non lawyers, are attempting to do so relying upon legal advice that lags rather than leads the conversation. IMHO retaining independent counsel, not so called expert advisors whom we have barely used, should have been our first priority when setting up this group. It didn't happen and today we are paying the price. I do not believe there is consensus on this list for this current work plan. In a bottom up model that should mean something but so far seems not to. When people like Roelof and Robin are saying the current work rate is not acceptable they should not be ignored. Both are key players in this effort whose opinions carry weight, at least with me. Through their hard work they have earned the right to be listened to perhaps more than many, yet their comments seem to be brushed off rather than respected, considered and acted upon. We have one chance to get this right. The first attempt to launch ICANN in the '90's likewise was done in a rushed manner and produced results so chaotic, in the opinion of some, the governing structure had to have a complete re-do. Given today's high salience of IG issues I suspect if we get this wrong there will be no chance for a re-do. The root will split and it will be our fault. The Heritage Foundation, a proud member of my stakeholder group, has suggested that the NTIA needs to extend the IANA contract until September 2017 ( http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/02/time-is-running-out-the-us-... ) so that we have time to do our work properly. I don't think we need that long but we do need substantially more time than we are currently being given to get this job done right in a bottom up, participatory manner where due consideration is given to the intricacies and widespread implications of the changes we are about to propose. Ed On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
I must join in the chorus of voices saying that this compressed timeline is not going to produce a quality proposal. Sure, we can slap something together, which only a small handful have thought about, but we won't get anywhere close to doing our best work, or even a good proposal at this pace.
We just don't have the time to think through all of the issues that must be thought through and to have answers to the questions that are foundational to the rest of our work. The confusion about what is actually being proposed and then advice that doesn't address what is under consideration is but one example of how the quality of our work is suffering by the frenetic pace.
Either this group is in charge of its own processes, or it isn't. It is beginning to look like the group is not in control, as imaginary imposed "deadlines" are the main driving consideration for us now. Not quality. This is a grave mistake. We simply must take the time to think all of this through and engage with the community on these crucial matters. That is the only way to get a quality result. The rush job to meet imaginary deadlines is creating greater problems every day and will only exacerbate as we go forward.
I remain committed to participating in a dozen or so calls a week, but I'm under no illusion that this last-minute cram job will be any more effective at building global governance institutions than it is to college freshman learning on the night before their final exam.
Best, Robin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I think it would be most helpful if the CCWG co-chairs and the CWG co-chairs got together and could try to come to some kind of agreement about what a reasonable timetable would be, given how close we both REALLY are to getting done. Instead of the work quality suffering because we are so rushed and have no time to think things through, we could work towards a timeline that truly is bottom-up and organically created, rather than this top-down imaginary "deadline" that is causing us to put out an ill-considered proposal. I have not heard a single argument for why we shouldn't take the time, 3-6 months perhaps, to get this right. The stakes are too high to cram it all in at the last minute and think we will make terrible mistakes if we insist on doing it this way. Best, Robin On Apr 14, 2015, at 4:29 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
I stand in complete agreement with Robin on this matter and, in fact, this morning have expressed my concern regarding timing to staff of a minority member of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. This process seems be to driven not by CCWG members but rather by external considerations.We are in the process of rebuilding the entire scheme of a multinational private corporation and, as non lawyers, are attempting to do so relying upon legal advice that lags rather than leads the conversation. IMHO retaining independent counsel, not so called expert advisors whom we have barely used, should have been our first priority when setting up this group. It didn't happen and today we are paying the price.
I do not believe there is consensus on this list for this current work plan. In a bottom up model that should mean something but so far seems not to. When people like Roelof and Robin are saying the current work rate is not acceptable they should not be ignored. Both are key players in this effort whose opinions carry weight, at least with me. Through their hard work they have earned the right to be listened to perhaps more than many, yet their comments seem to be brushed off rather than respected, considered and acted upon.
We have one chance to get this right. The first attempt to launch ICANN in the '90's likewise was done in a rushed manner and produced results so chaotic, in the opinion of some, the governing structure had to have a complete re-do. Given today's high salience of IG issues I suspect if we get this wrong there will be no chance for a re-do. The root will split and it will be our fault.
The Heritage Foundation, a proud member of my stakeholder group, has suggested that the NTIA needs to extend the IANA contract until September 2017 ( http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/02/time-is-running-out-the-us-... ) so that we have time to do our work properly. I don't think we need that long but we do need substantially more time than we are currently being given to get this job done right in a bottom up, participatory manner where due consideration is given to the intricacies and widespread implications of the changes we are about to propose.
Ed
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote: I must join in the chorus of voices saying that this compressed timeline is not going to produce a quality proposal. Sure, we can slap something together, which only a small handful have thought about, but we won't get anywhere close to doing our best work, or even a good proposal at this pace.
We just don't have the time to think through all of the issues that must be thought through and to have answers to the questions that are foundational to the rest of our work. The confusion about what is actually being proposed and then advice that doesn't address what is under consideration is but one example of how the quality of our work is suffering by the frenetic pace.
Either this group is in charge of its own processes, or it isn't. It is beginning to look like the group is not in control, as imaginary imposed "deadlines" are the main driving consideration for us now. Not quality. This is a grave mistake. We simply must take the time to think all of this through and engage with the community on these crucial matters. That is the only way to get a quality result. The rush job to meet imaginary deadlines is creating greater problems every day and will only exacerbate as we go forward.
I remain committed to participating in a dozen or so calls a week, but I'm under no illusion that this last-minute cram job will be any more effective at building global governance institutions than it is to college freshman learning on the night before their final exam.
Best, Robin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Robin, I support your call for the CWG and CCWG co-chairs to coordinate closely on updating our respective and joint timelines to ensure a quality output. That said, can you be more explicit about what part of our work product to date you feel is "ill-considered" and/or where you see potential "terrible mistakes?" 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. If there are specific areas where anyone thinks we're at risk of missing the mark, let's focus on them and fix them. That said, I believe these accountability reforms are necessary whether the IANA transition happens or not, so yes, let's be sure to get it right. Best, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Apr 14, 2015, at 1:58 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I think it would be most helpful if the CCWG co-chairs and the CWG co-chairs got together and could try to come to some kind of agreement about what a reasonable timetable would be, given how close we both REALLY are to getting done. Instead of the work quality suffering because we are so rushed and have no time to think things through, we could work towards a timeline that truly is bottom-up and organically created, rather than this top-down imaginary "deadline" that is causing us to put out an ill-considered proposal. I have not heard a single argument for why we shouldn't take the time, 3-6 months perhaps, to get this right. The stakes are too high to cram it all in at the last minute and think we will make terrible mistakes if we insist on doing it this way. Best, Robin On Apr 14, 2015, at 4:29 AM, Edward Morris wrote: I stand in complete agreement with Robin on this matter and, in fact, this morning have expressed my concern regarding timing to staff of a minority member of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. This process seems be to driven not by CCWG members but rather by external considerations.We are in the process of rebuilding the entire scheme of a multinational private corporation and, as non lawyers, are attempting to do so relying upon legal advice that lags rather than leads the conversation. IMHO retaining independent counsel, not so called expert advisors whom we have barely used, should have been our first priority when setting up this group. It didn't happen and today we are paying the price. I do not believe there is consensus on this list for this current work plan. In a bottom up model that should mean something but so far seems not to. When people like Roelof and Robin are saying the current work rate is not acceptable they should not be ignored. Both are key players in this effort whose opinions carry weight, at least with me. Through their hard work they have earned the right to be listened to perhaps more than many, yet their comments seem to be brushed off rather than respected, considered and acted upon. We have one chance to get this right. The first attempt to launch ICANN in the '90's likewise was done in a rushed manner and produced results so chaotic, in the opinion of some, the governing structure had to have a complete re-do. Given today's high salience of IG issues I suspect if we get this wrong there will be no chance for a re-do. The root will split and it will be our fault. The Heritage Foundation, a proud member of my stakeholder group, has suggested that the NTIA needs to extend the IANA contract until September 2017 ( http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/02/time-is-running-out-the-us-... ) so that we have time to do our work properly. I don't think we need that long but we do need substantially more time than we are currently being given to get this job done right in a bottom up, participatory manner where due consideration is given to the intricacies and widespread implications of the changes we are about to propose. Ed On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: I must join in the chorus of voices saying that this compressed timeline is not going to produce a quality proposal. Sure, we can slap something together, which only a small handful have thought about, but we won't get anywhere close to doing our best work, or even a good proposal at this pace. We just don't have the time to think through all of the issues that must be thought through and to have answers to the questions that are foundational to the rest of our work. The confusion about what is actually being proposed and then advice that doesn't address what is under consideration is but one example of how the quality of our work is suffering by the frenetic pace. Either this group is in charge of its own processes, or it isn't. It is beginning to look like the group is not in control, as imaginary imposed "deadlines" are the main driving consideration for us now. Not quality. This is a grave mistake. We simply must take the time to think all of this through and engage with the community on these crucial matters. That is the only way to get a quality result. The rush job to meet imaginary deadlines is creating greater problems every day and will only exacerbate as we go forward. I remain committed to participating in a dozen or so calls a week, but I'm under no illusion that this last-minute cram job will be any more effective at building global governance institutions than it is to college freshman learning on the night before their final exam. Best, Robin _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
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 ;____/
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
Agree Keith. October is looking very unlikely, but we can¹t go too deep in to 2016 either. I expect an extension, but no more than 4-6 months. J. On 4/14/15, 6:30 , "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com> 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
.....Just to add to the believes; I believe the limited time referred is not just on the side of the transition(re: getting this done before change is US Govt) but also on the side of the communities participating in this process who are participating at varying level of access to resources. In the long run, while its good not to rush this, at the same time its good not to take so long on this so the current level of diversity of views can be maintained and improved upon. Regards On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Dear Co-Chairs, Robin is 100% right. el On 2015-04-14 15:44, Robin Gross 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 [...]
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVLSlYAAoJEJcFHaN5RT+rKOgP/1zg14wBcD4TOVk2fi/f/Kjg 5JHTirZn+O/9KgrtynY0oF7miv5mvKsHc7No4x7yEh4O+nQKycmRpaCWGgIyHJKg 0B3P5WLYEX5yxjeD7VVEQaWCesqC947UIKTD1hURTk7gOOBybVkrkWTUo6T3bEPK J4LUR2cIirTptUxPnD6q2XKd1+z243d+6hStr2+Y7ZzvuVDURYDLMS7D50peXPWH vpXXYaa5iR3GUbhTMhraYjHX4h3fOpRUQLLE368Z7BjbDncl97WuQTed/tlOoQTe DC4S9KuwNeA0d/7c/K06SQMGnsTLdZD0cOEHJcJEMdOOOHhuoQc+OOePT6VhV6kq nwzE5bOrkRteebfQhAdIC51nuJNkQjGXCa6WTO3mQERG7N2WhClwCkGy6PII0IvU FpPa4d9sNilHjEI9DXf9B9Bz2q/xhRVGuskdPm0iIChFJu6KqbM4cMMTrR167fIZ /bb7cSSgv8F3M9dDe8wqTx5mVce1i1mc9aHeHL9KxwoLa1lv3tw59H7+IpBqxyu9 PGSCWhGUChVD2mRhpD8jCe4p+QvOLKtD+BGU5PsEp7h3w4Pp8Xq5jytLY67L6uYK acLLZEdRY1EwhbF9r8nglTpbiHGMelCH2c3YuTYBGpcYLPUE4HQh0hFI4UP9Aj2r JO62E8aMLn1qFoD4Iqtt =P3J5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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
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
participants (11)
-
Avri Doria -
Dr Eberhard Lisse -
Drazek, Keith -
Edward Morris -
James M. Bladel -
Jordan Carter -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Robin Gross -
Roelof Meijer -
Seun Ojedeji -
Thomas Rickert