RESEND: Impact assessment questions on CCWG Proposal
Resending as my original post was to the wrong mailing list: Hello All, In the public comments from the Board at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04m... The Board noted that it would be useful to have an impact analysis where the costs, benefits, and alternatives to proposals are weighed to assure that the design of the solution for each issues is the most efficient, least burdensome on the community , and the most cost-effective solution. We have prepared the attached detailed list of questions to help the CCWG with that impact analysis. Many of the questions likely have straight forward answers that can be prepared as part of a "FAQ" on the final proposal, and some questions really highlight trade-offs that need to be made, and the questions aim to help flesh out those trade-offs. Every major change to a system, usually results in some secondary effects. Often we can live with those secondary effects, but it is useful to think how to mitigate some of these secondary effects in the proposal. The Board hopes these will be helpful to the group in its full day session in Buenos Aires and welcomes hearing from the CCWG on Sunday. Unfortunately I don't arrive in Buenos Aires until Tuesday evening - but will endeavour to spend as much time as possible with you all in Buenos Aires and to help clarify any concerns raised by Board members. I also intent to attend the face-to-face meeting in July. Regards, Bruce Tonkin CCWG Board Liaison
Bruce, It is curious that this was not submitted as part of the public comment period. Why is the Board (and the staff) working on a parallel process as shown by this document? It looks at best ill-considered. It looks at worst like a deliberate effort to undermine the CCWG. Interested in your response. Jordan On 18 June 2015 at 21:42, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Resending as my original post was to the wrong mailing list:
Hello All,
In the public comments from the Board at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04m...
The Board noted that it would be useful to have an impact analysis where the costs, benefits, and alternatives to proposals are weighed to assure that the design of the solution for each issues is the most efficient, least burdensome on the community , and the most cost-effective solution.
We have prepared the attached detailed list of questions to help the CCWG with that impact analysis. Many of the questions likely have straight forward answers that can be prepared as part of a "FAQ" on the final proposal, and some questions really highlight trade-offs that need to be made, and the questions aim to help flesh out those trade-offs.
Every major change to a system, usually results in some secondary effects. Often we can live with those secondary effects, but it is useful to think how to mitigate some of these secondary effects in the proposal.
The Board hopes these will be helpful to the group in its full day session in Buenos Aires and welcomes hearing from the CCWG on Sunday.
Unfortunately I don't arrive in Buenos Aires until Tuesday evening - but will endeavour to spend as much time as possible with you all in Buenos Aires and to help clarify any concerns raised by Board members.
I also intent to attend the face-to-face meeting in July.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
CCWG Board Liaison
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *
Jordan, Actually, the Board’s public comment made reference to us providing a set of questions in respect to impact assessment. There have been several posts to the CCWG list referencing this and ‘hoping’ the questions would follow soon. I’m at a loss to understand why you would think this input is or is intended to be anything but helpful. I’m also confused as to why you would refer to this as a parallel process. For the record, this note from me is sent as a Board member. Cheers, Chris
On 19 Jun 2015, at 21:28 , Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Bruce,
It is curious that this was not submitted as part of the public comment period.
Why is the Board (and the staff) working on a parallel process as shown by this document?
It looks at best ill-considered. It looks at worst like a deliberate effort to undermine the CCWG.
Interested in your response.
Jordan
On 18 June 2015 at 21:42, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: Resending as my original post was to the wrong mailing list:
Hello All,
In the public comments from the Board at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04m... <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04m...>
The Board noted that it would be useful to have an impact analysis where the costs, benefits, and alternatives to proposals are weighed to assure that the design of the solution for each issues is the most efficient, least burdensome on the community , and the most cost-effective solution.
We have prepared the attached detailed list of questions to help the CCWG with that impact analysis. Many of the questions likely have straight forward answers that can be prepared as part of a "FAQ" on the final proposal, and some questions really highlight trade-offs that need to be made, and the questions aim to help flesh out those trade-offs.
Every major change to a system, usually results in some secondary effects. Often we can live with those secondary effects, but it is useful to think how to mitigate some of these secondary effects in the proposal.
The Board hopes these will be helpful to the group in its full day session in Buenos Aires and welcomes hearing from the CCWG on Sunday.
Unfortunately I don't arrive in Buenos Aires until Tuesday evening - but will endeavour to spend as much time as possible with you all in Buenos Aires and to help clarify any concerns raised by Board members.
I also intent to attend the face-to-face meeting in July.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
CCWG Board Liaison
_______________________________________________ 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>
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto: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
"It looks at best ill-considered. It looks at worst like a deliberate effort to undermine the CCWG." Just to make sure: that’s not a fact, but a personal opinion. One that I, for one, do not share at all and find very unconstructive and irresponsible as a reaction to input to the CCWG. Best, Roelof From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: vrijdag 19 juni 2015 13:28 To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RESEND: Impact assessment questions on CCWG Proposal Bruce, It is curious that this was not submitted as part of the public comment period. Why is the Board (and the staff) working on a parallel process as shown by this document? It looks at best ill-considered. It looks at worst like a deliberate effort to undermine the CCWG. Interested in your response. Jordan On 18 June 2015 at 21:42, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: Resending as my original post was to the wrong mailing list: Hello All, In the public comments from the Board at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04m... The Board noted that it would be useful to have an impact analysis where the costs, benefits, and alternatives to proposals are weighed to assure that the design of the solution for each issues is the most efficient, least burdensome on the community , and the most cost-effective solution. We have prepared the attached detailed list of questions to help the CCWG with that impact analysis. Many of the questions likely have straight forward answers that can be prepared as part of a "FAQ" on the final proposal, and some questions really highlight trade-offs that need to be made, and the questions aim to help flesh out those trade-offs. Every major change to a system, usually results in some secondary effects. Often we can live with those secondary effects, but it is useful to think how to mitigate some of these secondary effects in the proposal. The Board hopes these will be helpful to the group in its full day session in Buenos Aires and welcomes hearing from the CCWG on Sunday. Unfortunately I don't arrive in Buenos Aires until Tuesday evening - but will endeavour to spend as much time as possible with you all in Buenos Aires and to help clarify any concerns raised by Board members. I also intent to attend the face-to-face meeting in July. Regards, Bruce Tonkin CCWG Board Liaison _______________________________________________ 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 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet
hi Roelof, all The more input we have the better. I share what I think is a widely held view that we have an obligation to deal with material that arrives as best we can. I take that attitude for granted. Chris on this list and in the meeting this morning has assured all of us the intention is to be constructive, and I accept that. The Board must have known, however, that submission of hundreds of questions about the proposal the night before a face to face meeting would likely not be seen as the most constructive manner in which to contribute to the conversation. If my language was too strong and went beyond making that point, then I both withdraw it and apologise for it. Jordan On 19 June 2015 at 14:05, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
"It looks at best ill-considered. It looks at worst like a deliberate effort to undermine the CCWG."
Just to make sure: that’s not a fact, but a personal opinion. One that I, for one, do not share at all and find very unconstructive and irresponsible as a reaction to input to the CCWG.
Best,
Roelof
From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Date: vrijdag 19 juni 2015 13:28 To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RESEND: Impact assessment questions on CCWG Proposal
Bruce,
It is curious that this was not submitted as part of the public comment period.
Why is the Board (and the staff) working on a parallel process as shown by this document?
It looks at best ill-considered. It looks at worst like a deliberate effort to undermine the CCWG.
Interested in your response.
Jordan
On 18 June 2015 at 21:42, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Resending as my original post was to the wrong mailing list:
Hello All,
In the public comments from the Board at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04m...
The Board noted that it would be useful to have an impact analysis where the costs, benefits, and alternatives to proposals are weighed to assure that the design of the solution for each issues is the most efficient, least burdensome on the community , and the most cost-effective solution.
We have prepared the attached detailed list of questions to help the CCWG with that impact analysis. Many of the questions likely have straight forward answers that can be prepared as part of a "FAQ" on the final proposal, and some questions really highlight trade-offs that need to be made, and the questions aim to help flesh out those trade-offs.
Every major change to a system, usually results in some secondary effects. Often we can live with those secondary effects, but it is useful to think how to mitigate some of these secondary effects in the proposal.
The Board hopes these will be helpful to the group in its full day session in Buenos Aires and welcomes hearing from the CCWG on Sunday.
Unfortunately I don't arrive in Buenos Aires until Tuesday evening - but will endeavour to spend as much time as possible with you all in Buenos Aires and to help clarify any concerns raised by Board members.
I also intent to attend the face-to-face meeting in July.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
CCWG Board Liaison
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
*A better world through a better Internet *
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *
The Board must have known, however, that submission of hundreds of questions about the proposal the night before a face to face meeting would likely not be seen as the most constructive manner in which to contribute to the conversation.
No. On the contrary. I personally pushed to have the document sent out IN TIME for the session today. I thought that there would be a real problem if we waited until later. Do you seriously imagine that if we had thought that sending the questions out would ‘not be seen as the most constructive manner…’ that we would have sent them out? Seriously? And BTW, there are not hundreds of questions. Cheers, Chris
On 20 Jun 2015, at 03:17 , Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
hi Roelof, all
The more input we have the better. I share what I think is a widely held view that we have an obligation to deal with material that arrives as best we can. I take that attitude for granted.
Chris on this list and in the meeting this morning has assured all of us the intention is to be constructive, and I accept that.
The Board must have known, however, that submission of hundreds of questions about the proposal the night before a face to face meeting would likely not be seen as the most constructive manner in which to contribute to the conversation.
If my language was too strong and went beyond making that point, then I both withdraw it and apologise for it.
Jordan
On 19 June 2015 at 14:05, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote: "It looks at best ill-considered. It looks at worst like a deliberate effort to undermine the CCWG."
Just to make sure: that’s not a fact, but a personal opinion. One that I, for one, do not share at all and find very unconstructive and irresponsible as a reaction to input to the CCWG.
Best,
Roelof
From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: vrijdag 19 juni 2015 13:28 To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RESEND: Impact assessment questions on CCWG Proposal
Bruce,
It is curious that this was not submitted as part of the public comment period.
Why is the Board (and the staff) working on a parallel process as shown by this document?
It looks at best ill-considered. It looks at worst like a deliberate effort to undermine the CCWG.
Interested in your response.
Jordan
On 18 June 2015 at 21:42, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: Resending as my original post was to the wrong mailing list:
Hello All,
In the public comments from the Board at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04m... <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04m...>
The Board noted that it would be useful to have an impact analysis where the costs, benefits, and alternatives to proposals are weighed to assure that the design of the solution for each issues is the most efficient, least burdensome on the community , and the most cost-effective solution.
We have prepared the attached detailed list of questions to help the CCWG with that impact analysis. Many of the questions likely have straight forward answers that can be prepared as part of a "FAQ" on the final proposal, and some questions really highlight trade-offs that need to be made, and the questions aim to help flesh out those trade-offs.
Every major change to a system, usually results in some secondary effects. Often we can live with those secondary effects, but it is useful to think how to mitigate some of these secondary effects in the proposal.
The Board hopes these will be helpful to the group in its full day session in Buenos Aires and welcomes hearing from the CCWG on Sunday.
Unfortunately I don't arrive in Buenos Aires until Tuesday evening - but will endeavour to spend as much time as possible with you all in Buenos Aires and to help clarify any concerns raised by Board members.
I also intent to attend the face-to-face meeting in July.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
CCWG Board Liaison
_______________________________________________ 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>
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 <tel:04%20495%202118> (office) | +64 21 442 649 <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
_______________________________________________ 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>
I counted 88 primary questions, with many of those questions having multiple secondary questions of their own. For example, Question number 2 actually contains 4 sub-questions. I’m glad we received them as soon as possible, but the detailed list does raise concerns about timeframes. Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Disspain Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 2:27 PM To: Jordan Carter Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RESEND: Impact assessment questions on CCWG Proposal The Board must have known, however, that submission of hundreds of questions about the proposal the night before a face to face meeting would likely not be seen as the most constructive manner in which to contribute to the conversation. No. On the contrary. I personally pushed to have the document sent out IN TIME for the session today. I thought that there would be a real problem if we waited until later. Do you seriously imagine that if we had thought that sending the questions out would ‘not be seen as the most constructive manner…’ that we would have sent them out? Seriously? And BTW, there are not hundreds of questions. Cheers, Chris On 20 Jun 2015, at 03:17 , Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: hi Roelof, all The more input we have the better. I share what I think is a widely held view that we have an obligation to deal with material that arrives as best we can. I take that attitude for granted. Chris on this list and in the meeting this morning has assured all of us the intention is to be constructive, and I accept that. The Board must have known, however, that submission of hundreds of questions about the proposal the night before a face to face meeting would likely not be seen as the most constructive manner in which to contribute to the conversation. If my language was too strong and went beyond making that point, then I both withdraw it and apologise for it. Jordan On 19 June 2015 at 14:05, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote: "It looks at best ill-considered. It looks at worst like a deliberate effort to undermine the CCWG." Just to make sure: that’s not a fact, but a personal opinion. One that I, for one, do not share at all and find very unconstructive and irresponsible as a reaction to input to the CCWG. Best, Roelof From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: vrijdag 19 juni 2015 13:28 To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RESEND: Impact assessment questions on CCWG Proposal Bruce, It is curious that this was not submitted as part of the public comment period. Why is the Board (and the staff) working on a parallel process as shown by this document? It looks at best ill-considered. It looks at worst like a deliberate effort to undermine the CCWG. Interested in your response. Jordan On 18 June 2015 at 21:42, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: Resending as my original post was to the wrong mailing list: Hello All, In the public comments from the Board at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04m... The Board noted that it would be useful to have an impact analysis where the costs, benefits, and alternatives to proposals are weighed to assure that the design of the solution for each issues is the most efficient, least burdensome on the community , and the most cost-effective solution. We have prepared the attached detailed list of questions to help the CCWG with that impact analysis. Many of the questions likely have straight forward answers that can be prepared as part of a "FAQ" on the final proposal, and some questions really highlight trade-offs that need to be made, and the questions aim to help flesh out those trade-offs. Every major change to a system, usually results in some secondary effects. Often we can live with those secondary effects, but it is useful to think how to mitigate some of these secondary effects in the proposal. The Board hopes these will be helpful to the group in its full day session in Buenos Aires and welcomes hearing from the CCWG on Sunday. Unfortunately I don't arrive in Buenos Aires until Tuesday evening - but will endeavour to spend as much time as possible with you all in Buenos Aires and to help clarify any concerns raised by Board members. I also intent to attend the face-to-face meeting in July. Regards, Bruce Tonkin CCWG Board Liaison _______________________________________________ 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 04 495 2118<tel:04%20495%202118> (office) | +64 21 442 649<tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet _______________________________________________ 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
The number of questions question is a sub-point really. So let’s take that off the table. The rest of what I said is far more important IMO. Cheers, Chris
On 20 Jun 2015, at 03:36 , Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
I counted 88 primary questions, with many of those questions having multiple secondary questions of their own. For example, Question number 2 actually contains 4 sub-questions.
I’m glad we received them as soon as possible, but the detailed list does raise concerns about timeframes.
Keith
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Chris Disspain Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 2:27 PM To: Jordan Carter Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RESEND: Impact assessment questions on CCWG Proposal
The Board must have known, however, that submission of hundreds of questions about the proposal the night before a face to face meeting would likely not be seen as the most constructive manner in which to contribute to the conversation.
No. On the contrary. I personally pushed to have the document sent out IN TIME for the session today. I thought that there would be a real problem if we waited until later.
Do you seriously imagine that if we had thought that sending the questions out would ‘not be seen as the most constructive manner…’ that we would have sent them out? Seriously?
And BTW, there are not hundreds of questions.
Cheers,
Chris
On 20 Jun 2015, at 03:17 , Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
hi Roelof, all
The more input we have the better. I share what I think is a widely held view that we have an obligation to deal with material that arrives as best we can. I take that attitude for granted.
Chris on this list and in the meeting this morning has assured all of us the intention is to be constructive, and I accept that.
The Board must have known, however, that submission of hundreds of questions about the proposal the night before a face to face meeting would likely not be seen as the most constructive manner in which to contribute to the conversation.
If my language was too strong and went beyond making that point, then I both withdraw it and apologise for it.
Jordan
On 19 June 2015 at 14:05, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote: "It looks at best ill-considered. It looks at worst like a deliberate effort to undermine the CCWG."
Just to make sure: that’s not a fact, but a personal opinion. One that I, for one, do not share at all and find very unconstructive and irresponsible as a reaction to input to the CCWG.
Best,
Roelof
From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: vrijdag 19 juni 2015 13:28 To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RESEND: Impact assessment questions on CCWG Proposal
Bruce,
It is curious that this was not submitted as part of the public comment period.
Why is the Board (and the staff) working on a parallel process as shown by this document?
It looks at best ill-considered. It looks at worst like a deliberate effort to undermine the CCWG.
Interested in your response.
Jordan
On 18 June 2015 at 21:42, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: Resending as my original post was to the wrong mailing list:
Hello All,
In the public comments from the Board at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04m... <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04m...>
The Board noted that it would be useful to have an impact analysis where the costs, benefits, and alternatives to proposals are weighed to assure that the design of the solution for each issues is the most efficient, least burdensome on the community , and the most cost-effective solution.
We have prepared the attached detailed list of questions to help the CCWG with that impact analysis. Many of the questions likely have straight forward answers that can be prepared as part of a "FAQ" on the final proposal, and some questions really highlight trade-offs that need to be made, and the questions aim to help flesh out those trade-offs.
Every major change to a system, usually results in some secondary effects. Often we can live with those secondary effects, but it is useful to think how to mitigate some of these secondary effects in the proposal.
The Board hopes these will be helpful to the group in its full day session in Buenos Aires and welcomes hearing from the CCWG on Sunday.
Unfortunately I don't arrive in Buenos Aires until Tuesday evening - but will endeavour to spend as much time as possible with you all in Buenos Aires and to help clarify any concerns raised by Board members.
I also intent to attend the face-to-face meeting in July.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
CCWG Board Liaison
_______________________________________________ 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>
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 <tel:04%20495%202118> (office) | +64 21 442 649 <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
_______________________________________________ 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>
No it doesn't. We have as much time as we need. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jun 19, 2015, at 14:36, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
I counted 88 primary questions, with many of those questions having multiple secondary questions of their own. For example, Question number 2 actually contains 4 sub-questions.
I’m glad we received them as soon as possible, but the detailed list does raise concerns about timeframes.
Keith
participants (6)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Chris Disspain -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Drazek, Keith -
Jordan Carter -
Roelof Meijer