A question about WS1 v WS2
Hi all I had the dubious pleasure of reading a post by one of our participants which got me thinking a range of things[1].. some of them constructive :-) One is something I wanted to test others' views on. Both in Kieran's piece and in the other feedback from various conversations and comments, there's a clear current of both staff/management accountability and ICANN entities/organisations accountability as needing work. Now, I agree with that - I think the openness of this ICANN system is very poor, due to many things - the ridiculous time demands it makes on people to understand how it works (something none of our proposals materially complicates), the density and extent of the information, the rushed pace of many discussions, the ICANN way of doing multiple things at once, etc etc. I also think the culture across the organisation is relatively inwardly focused... and that the Board has a job to do in building a culture and practice of accountability and community engagement in parts of the staff. But those are the views of an insider/outsider: someone whose job links him to this ICANN system, but who has only (!) attended six meetings of ICANN. Others of you will have different perspectives. To the crux of my point: while I would really like us to tackle all the above, we face an imperative *to not hold up the transition*. I think we have been clear about that from the beginning, which was delayed from when it should have happened due to some of the factors I note above. So: my interpretation has always been as follows: *Making ICANN's operations more generally accountable, and the whole organisation more outward looking and open, is very important - but our job in WorkStream 1 has been to put in place the structural features of a new accountability settlement that will give us the chance to achieve that in WorkStream 2.* To put it another way: we have to constrain ourselves to building the levers in this WS1 process that will allow the broader changes to approach that are needed and will be on the table in WS2, and then the first of the new ATRT reviews. *Do you share this understanding of why we have limited our focus?* Interested in people's thoughts on this. Want to know if I am out on a limb! thanks Jordan [1]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/18/us_government_stages_another_iana_in... -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *
I certainly agree with your interpretation, Jordan. The pressing nature of the transition dictates we limit our function to empowering the community and not trying to solve every challenge of ICANN accountability. There's a great deal that can and should be done to improve the accountability of the organization as a whole including operational improvements and metrics, facilitating periodic participation in policy development and greater use of data in policy development as well as establishing a culture of continuous improvement (working on those two!). But we can't do that in WS1 Jonathan Zuck President ACT: The App Association Www.ACTonline.org From: Jordan Carter<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent: ?Monday?, ?June? ?22?, ?2015 ?5?:?19? ?PM To: Accountability CCWG<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Hi all I had the dubious pleasure of reading a post by one of our participants which got me thinking a range of things[1].. some of them constructive :-) One is something I wanted to test others' views on. Both in Kieran's piece and in the other feedback from various conversations and comments, there's a clear current of both staff/management accountability and ICANN entities/organisations accountability as needing work. Now, I agree with that - I think the openness of this ICANN system is very poor, due to many things - the ridiculous time demands it makes on people to understand how it works (something none of our proposals materially complicates), the density and extent of the information, the rushed pace of many discussions, the ICANN way of doing multiple things at once, etc etc. I also think the culture across the organisation is relatively inwardly focused... and that the Board has a job to do in building a culture and practice of accountability and community engagement in parts of the staff. But those are the views of an insider/outsider: someone whose job links him to this ICANN system, but who has only (!) attended six meetings of ICANN. Others of you will have different perspectives. To the crux of my point: while I would really like us to tackle all the above, we face an imperative to not hold up the transition. I think we have been clear about that from the beginning, which was delayed from when it should have happened due to some of the factors I note above. So: my interpretation has always been as follows: Making ICANN's operations more generally accountable, and the whole organisation more outward looking and open, is very important - but our job in WorkStream 1 has been to put in place the structural features of a new accountability settlement that will give us the chance to achieve that in WorkStream 2. To put it another way: we have to constrain ourselves to building the levers in this WS1 process that will allow the broader changes to approach that are needed and will be on the table in WS2, and then the first of the new ATRT reviews. Do you share this understanding of why we have limited our focus? Interested in people's thoughts on this. Want to know if I am out on a limb! thanks Jordan [1]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/18/us_government_stages_another_iana_in... -- 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
Dear Co-Chairs, he's wrong. As usual. We need to get it right. Not get it done. Never mind that Strickling has pronounced himself very clearly and repeatedly. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jun 22, 2015, at 17:24, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
I certainly agree with your interpretation, Jordan. The pressing nature of the transition dictates we limit our function to empowering the community and not trying to solve every challenge of ICANN accountability. There’s a great deal that can and should be done to improve the accountability of the organization as a whole including operational improvements and metrics, facilitating periodic participation in policy development and greater use of data in policy development as well as establishing a culture of continuous improvement (working on those two!).
But we can't do that in WS1
Jonathan Zuck President ACT: The App Association Www.ACTonline.org
From: Jordan Carter Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 5:19 PM To: Accountability CCWG
Hi all
I had the dubious pleasure of reading a post by one of our participants which got me thinking a range of things[1].. some of them constructive :-)
One is something I wanted to test others' views on.
Both in Kieran's piece and in the other feedback from various conversations and comments, there's a clear current of both staff/management accountability and ICANN entities/organisations accountability as needing work.
Now, I agree with that - I think the openness of this ICANN system is very poor, due to many things - the ridiculous time demands it makes on people to understand how it works (something none of our proposals materially complicates), the density and extent of the information, the rushed pace of many discussions, the ICANN way of doing multiple things at once, etc etc.
I also think the culture across the organisation is relatively inwardly focused... and that the Board has a job to do in building a culture and practice of accountability and community engagement in parts of the staff.
But those are the views of an insider/outsider: someone whose job links him to this ICANN system, but who has only (!) attended six meetings of ICANN. Others of you will have different perspectives.
To the crux of my point: while I would really like us to tackle all the above, we face an imperative to not hold up the transition. I think we have been clear about that from the beginning, which was delayed from when it should have happened due to some of the factors I note above.
So: my interpretation has always been as follows:
Making ICANN's operations more generally accountable, and the whole organisation more outward looking and open, is very important - but our job in WorkStream 1 has been to put in place the structural features of a new accountability settlement that will give us the chance to achieve that in WorkStream 2.
To put it another way: we have to constrain ourselves to building the levers in this WS1 process that will allow the broader changes to approach that are needed and will be on the table in WS2, and then the first of the new ATRT reviews.
Do you share this understanding of why we have limited our focus?
Interested in people's thoughts on this. Want to know if I am out on a limb!
thanks Jordan
[1]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/18/us_government_stages_another_iana_in...
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Colleagues, In agreement with Dr. Lisse, we need to get it right nonetheless the essence of strategy is choosing what not to do. (Michael Porter) On 6/23/15, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
he's wrong. As usual.
We need to get it right. Not get it done.
Never mind that Strickling has pronounced himself very clearly and repeatedly.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jun 22, 2015, at 17:24, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
I certainly agree with your interpretation, Jordan. The pressing nature of the transition dictates we limit our function to empowering the community and not trying to solve every challenge of ICANN accountability. There’s a great deal that can and should be done to improve the accountability of the organization as a whole including operational improvements and metrics, facilitating periodic participation in policy development and greater use of data in policy development as well as establishing a culture of continuous improvement (working on those two!).
But we can't do that in WS1
Jonathan Zuck President ACT: The App Association Www.ACTonline.org
From: Jordan Carter Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 5:19 PM To: Accountability CCWG
Hi all
I had the dubious pleasure of reading a post by one of our participants which got me thinking a range of things[1].. some of them constructive :-)
One is something I wanted to test others' views on.
Both in Kieran's piece and in the other feedback from various conversations and comments, there's a clear current of both staff/management accountability and ICANN entities/organisations accountability as needing work.
Now, I agree with that - I think the openness of this ICANN system is very poor, due to many things - the ridiculous time demands it makes on people to understand how it works (something none of our proposals materially complicates), the density and extent of the information, the rushed pace of many discussions, the ICANN way of doing multiple things at once, etc etc.
I also think the culture across the organisation is relatively inwardly focused... and that the Board has a job to do in building a culture and practice of accountability and community engagement in parts of the staff.
But those are the views of an insider/outsider: someone whose job links him to this ICANN system, but who has only (!) attended six meetings of ICANN. Others of you will have different perspectives.
To the crux of my point: while I would really like us to tackle all the above, we face an imperative to not hold up the transition. I think we have been clear about that from the beginning, which was delayed from when it should have happened due to some of the factors I note above.
So: my interpretation has always been as follows:
Making ICANN's operations more generally accountable, and the whole organisation more outward looking and open, is very important - but our job in WorkStream 1 has been to put in place the structural features of a new accountability settlement that will give us the chance to achieve that in WorkStream 2.
To put it another way: we have to constrain ourselves to building the levers in this WS1 process that will allow the broader changes to approach that are needed and will be on the table in WS2, and then the first of the new ATRT reviews.
Do you share this understanding of why we have limited our focus?
Interested in people's thoughts on this. Want to know if I am out on a limb!
thanks Jordan
[1]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/18/us_government_stages_another_iana_in...
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
Agree with Jonathan We must concentrate on priority actions Pls do not involve us in something which is not pressing . We have littlke time We do not want to spent hours and hours on these like those hours that we wasted on UA. We were misled and we do not want to do it again The working method and priorities must be identified and decided at the level of the main group and not at the level of working parties Regards Kavouss 2015-06-23 0:23 GMT+02:00 Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com>:
Hi Colleagues,
In agreement with Dr. Lisse, we need to get it right nonetheless the essence of strategy is choosing what not to do. (Michael Porter)
On 6/23/15, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
he's wrong. As usual.
We need to get it right. Not get it done.
Never mind that Strickling has pronounced himself very clearly and repeatedly.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jun 22, 2015, at 17:24, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
I certainly agree with your interpretation, Jordan. The pressing nature of the transition dictates we limit our function to empowering the community and not trying to solve every challenge of ICANN accountability. There’s a great deal that can and should be done to improve the accountability of the organization as a whole including operational improvements and metrics, facilitating periodic participation in policy development and greater use of data in policy development as well as establishing a culture of continuous improvement (working on those two!).
But we can't do that in WS1
Jonathan Zuck President ACT: The App Association Www.ACTonline.org
From: Jordan Carter Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 5:19 PM To: Accountability CCWG
Hi all
I had the dubious pleasure of reading a post by one of our participants which got me thinking a range of things[1].. some of them constructive :-)
One is something I wanted to test others' views on.
Both in Kieran's piece and in the other feedback from various conversations and comments, there's a clear current of both staff/management accountability and ICANN entities/organisations accountability as needing work.
Now, I agree with that - I think the openness of this ICANN system is very poor, due to many things - the ridiculous time demands it makes on people to understand how it works (something none of our proposals materially complicates), the density and extent of the information, the rushed pace of many discussions, the ICANN way of doing multiple things at once, etc etc.
I also think the culture across the organisation is relatively inwardly focused... and that the Board has a job to do in building a culture and practice of accountability and community engagement in parts of the staff.
But those are the views of an insider/outsider: someone whose job links him to this ICANN system, but who has only (!) attended six meetings of ICANN. Others of you will have different perspectives.
To the crux of my point: while I would really like us to tackle all the above, we face an imperative to not hold up the transition. I think we have been clear about that from the beginning, which was delayed from when it should have happened due to some of the factors I note above.
So: my interpretation has always been as follows:
Making ICANN's operations more generally accountable, and the whole organisation more outward looking and open, is very important - but our job in WorkStream 1 has been to put in place the structural features of a new accountability settlement that will give us the chance to achieve that in WorkStream 2.
To put it another way: we have to constrain ourselves to building the levers in this WS1 process that will allow the broader changes to approach that are needed and will be on the table in WS2, and then the first of the new ATRT reviews.
Do you share this understanding of why we have limited our focus?
Interested in people's thoughts on this. Want to know if I am out on a limb!
thanks Jordan
[1]:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/18/us_government_stages_another_iana_in...
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thank you Kavouss and Jonathan and Jordan. We need to get our work done correctly AND in a timely manner to enable a successful transition. I believe we can do both. They are not mutually exclusive. That is precisely why we agreed to bifurcate our work into WS-1 and WS-2. Regards, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Jun 22, 2015, at 9:13 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Agree with Jonathan We must concentrate on priority actions Pls do not involve us in something which is not pressing . We have littlke time We do not want to spent hours and hours on these like those hours that we wasted on UA. We were misled and we do not want to do it again The working method and priorities must be identified and decided at the level of the main group and not at the level of working parties Regards Kavouss 2015-06-23 0:23 GMT+02:00 Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com<mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com>>: Hi Colleagues, In agreement with Dr. Lisse, we need to get it right nonetheless the essence of strategy is choosing what not to do. (Michael Porter) On 6/23/15, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
he's wrong. As usual.
We need to get it right. Not get it done.
Never mind that Strickling has pronounced himself very clearly and repeatedly.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jun 22, 2015, at 17:24, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org<mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>> wrote:
I certainly agree with your interpretation, Jordan. The pressing nature of the transition dictates we limit our function to empowering the community and not trying to solve every challenge of ICANN accountability. There’s a great deal that can and should be done to improve the accountability of the organization as a whole including operational improvements and metrics, facilitating periodic participation in policy development and greater use of data in policy development as well as establishing a culture of continuous improvement (working on those two!).
But we can't do that in WS1
Jonathan Zuck President ACT: The App Association http://Www.ACTonline.org
From: Jordan Carter Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 5:19 PM To: Accountability CCWG
Hi all
I had the dubious pleasure of reading a post by one of our participants which got me thinking a range of things[1].. some of them constructive :-)
One is something I wanted to test others' views on.
Both in Kieran's piece and in the other feedback from various conversations and comments, there's a clear current of both staff/management accountability and ICANN entities/organisations accountability as needing work.
Now, I agree with that - I think the openness of this ICANN system is very poor, due to many things - the ridiculous time demands it makes on people to understand how it works (something none of our proposals materially complicates), the density and extent of the information, the rushed pace of many discussions, the ICANN way of doing multiple things at once, etc etc.
I also think the culture across the organisation is relatively inwardly focused... and that the Board has a job to do in building a culture and practice of accountability and community engagement in parts of the staff.
But those are the views of an insider/outsider: someone whose job links him to this ICANN system, but who has only (!) attended six meetings of ICANN. Others of you will have different perspectives.
To the crux of my point: while I would really like us to tackle all the above, we face an imperative to not hold up the transition. I think we have been clear about that from the beginning, which was delayed from when it should have happened due to some of the factors I note above.
So: my interpretation has always been as follows:
Making ICANN's operations more generally accountable, and the whole organisation more outward looking and open, is very important - but our job in WorkStream 1 has been to put in place the structural features of a new accountability settlement that will give us the chance to achieve that in WorkStream 2.
To put it another way: we have to constrain ourselves to building the levers in this WS1 process that will allow the broader changes to approach that are needed and will be on the table in WS2, and then the first of the new ATRT reviews.
Do you share this understanding of why we have limited our focus?
Interested in people's thoughts on this. Want to know if I am out on a limb!
thanks Jordan
[1]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/18/us_government_stages_another_iana_in...
-- 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
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ _______________________________________________ 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
To amplify on Keith’s point – we must get it done right, and in a timely fashion. I see both as mandatory criteria. Neither objective should – or need be – sacrificed in the name of the other. We have a window of opportunity that may close, at least for some period of time, as 2016 progresses. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: <Drazek>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Date: Monday, June 22, 2015 at 11:43 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: "directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>" <directors@omadhina.net<mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A question about WS1 v WS2 Thank you Kavouss and Jonathan and Jordan. We need to get our work done correctly AND in a timely manner to enable a successful transition. I believe we can do both. They are not mutually exclusive. That is precisely why we agreed to bifurcate our work into WS-1 and WS-2. Regards, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Jun 22, 2015, at 9:13 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Agree with Jonathan We must concentrate on priority actions Pls do not involve us in something which is not pressing . We have littlke time We do not want to spent hours and hours on these like those hours that we wasted on UA. We were misled and we do not want to do it again The working method and priorities must be identified and decided at the level of the main group and not at the level of working parties Regards Kavouss 2015-06-23 0:23 GMT+02:00 Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com<mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com>>: Hi Colleagues, In agreement with Dr. Lisse, we need to get it right nonetheless the essence of strategy is choosing what not to do. (Michael Porter) On 6/23/15, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
he's wrong. As usual.
We need to get it right. Not get it done.
Never mind that Strickling has pronounced himself very clearly and repeatedly.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jun 22, 2015, at 17:24, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org<mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>> wrote:
I certainly agree with your interpretation, Jordan. The pressing nature of the transition dictates we limit our function to empowering the community and not trying to solve every challenge of ICANN accountability. There’s a great deal that can and should be done to improve the accountability of the organization as a whole including operational improvements and metrics, facilitating periodic participation in policy development and greater use of data in policy development as well as establishing a culture of continuous improvement (working on those two!).
But we can't do that in WS1
Jonathan Zuck President ACT: The App Association http://Www.ACTonline.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__Www.ACTonline.org&d=AwMF_g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=lYaanM0LtSkNzSSPuIrVvnPTHZ729G7_pp66_aXJ1Ik&s=bUvwXc-OhZpubppydzO11hdbQulw89NTJxF-PfVf0MA&e=>
From: Jordan Carter Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 5:19 PM To: Accountability CCWG
Hi all
I had the dubious pleasure of reading a post by one of our participants which got me thinking a range of things[1].. some of them constructive :-)
One is something I wanted to test others' views on.
Both in Kieran's piece and in the other feedback from various conversations and comments, there's a clear current of both staff/management accountability and ICANN entities/organisations accountability as needing work.
Now, I agree with that - I think the openness of this ICANN system is very poor, due to many things - the ridiculous time demands it makes on people to understand how it works (something none of our proposals materially complicates), the density and extent of the information, the rushed pace of many discussions, the ICANN way of doing multiple things at once, etc etc.
I also think the culture across the organisation is relatively inwardly focused... and that the Board has a job to do in building a culture and practice of accountability and community engagement in parts of the staff.
But those are the views of an insider/outsider: someone whose job links him to this ICANN system, but who has only (!) attended six meetings of ICANN. Others of you will have different perspectives.
To the crux of my point: while I would really like us to tackle all the above, we face an imperative to not hold up the transition. I think we have been clear about that from the beginning, which was delayed from when it should have happened due to some of the factors I note above.
So: my interpretation has always been as follows:
Making ICANN's operations more generally accountable, and the whole organisation more outward looking and open, is very important - but our job in WorkStream 1 has been to put in place the structural features of a new accountability settlement that will give us the chance to achieve that in WorkStream 2.
To put it another way: we have to constrain ourselves to building the levers in this WS1 process that will allow the broader changes to approach that are needed and will be on the table in WS2, and then the first of the new ATRT reviews.
Do you share this understanding of why we have limited our focus?
Interested in people's thoughts on this. Want to know if I am out on a limb!
thanks Jordan
-- 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMF_g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=lYaanM0LtSkNzSSPuIrVvnPTHZ729G7_pp66_aXJ1Ik&s=Pe9tu0pnD17K5BGGj7pDKppi9mUP8B5DJtBkiTibuNc&e=>
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.otienobarrack.me.ke_&d=AwMF_g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=lYaanM0LtSkNzSSPuIrVvnPTHZ729G7_pp66_aXJ1Ik&s=Ha44cyxoSamFIEvy1jfupBPCNoyxwverojEus8LiS5Y&e=> _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMF_g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=lYaanM0LtSkNzSSPuIrVvnPTHZ729G7_pp66_aXJ1Ik&s=Pe9tu0pnD17K5BGGj7pDKppi9mUP8B5DJtBkiTibuNc&e=> _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMF_g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=lYaanM0LtSkNzSSPuIrVvnPTHZ729G7_pp66_aXJ1Ik&s=Pe9tu0pnD17K5BGGj7pDKppi9mUP8B5DJtBkiTibuNc&e=>
Dear Co-Chairs, NTIA has posed some very legitimate questions and I expect the CCWG will assess and address them as part of our ongoing community consensus-building process. This is healthy and in no way detracts from our work to date. Our final consensus recommendation will be more refined and defensible thanks to the questions received from NTIA and the ICANN Board. I understand we may also receive questions this week from the GAC. We should welcome and address them all. Regarding the need to get it done and done right....last October in Los Angeles, NTIA and ICANN together recommended bifurcation of our work into WS-1 and WS-2 to enable our ability to meet their preferred transition timelines. That's exactly what we've embraced and exactly what we should strive to deliver. The latest timeline (as described this morning by Fadi) anticipates finalization and approval of the CCWG WS-1 around the Dublin ICANN meeting in late October...4 months from now. We should be able to deliver a proposal by that date that meets the community's needs and NTIA's criteria. Upon further reflection, it strikes me that our colleague may, in fact, prefer the IANA stewardship transition not happen at all. If memory serves, we have yet to receive a constructive recommendation or substantive contribution from him. Under what specific circumstances would he consider the transition appropriate or desirable? What exactly does "get it right" mean to our colleague? Would a Board-approved FOI for ccTLDs address any of our colleagues' opaque but persistent concerns? Regards, Keith On Jun 22, 2015, at 6:11 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs, he's wrong. As usual. We need to get it right. Not get it done. Never mind that Strickling has pronounced himself very clearly and repeatedly. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On Jun 22, 2015, at 17:24, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org<mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>> wrote: I certainly agree with your interpretation, Jordan. The pressing nature of the transition dictates we limit our function to empowering the community and not trying to solve every challenge of ICANN accountability. There’s a great deal that can and should be done to improve the accountability of the organization as a whole including operational improvements and metrics, facilitating periodic participation in policy development and greater use of data in policy development as well as establishing a culture of continuous improvement (working on those two!). But we can't do that in WS1 Jonathan Zuck President ACT: The App Association http://Www.ACTonline.org From: Jordan Carter<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 5:19 PM To: Accountability CCWG<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Hi all I had the dubious pleasure of reading a post by one of our participants which got me thinking a range of things[1].. some of them constructive :-) One is something I wanted to test others' views on. Both in Kieran's piece and in the other feedback from various conversations and comments, there's a clear current of both staff/management accountability and ICANN entities/organisations accountability as needing work. Now, I agree with that - I think the openness of this ICANN system is very poor, due to many things - the ridiculous time demands it makes on people to understand how it works (something none of our proposals materially complicates), the density and extent of the information, the rushed pace of many discussions, the ICANN way of doing multiple things at once, etc etc. I also think the culture across the organisation is relatively inwardly focused... and that the Board has a job to do in building a culture and practice of accountability and community engagement in parts of the staff. But those are the views of an insider/outsider: someone whose job links him to this ICANN system, but who has only (!) attended six meetings of ICANN. Others of you will have different perspectives. To the crux of my point: while I would really like us to tackle all the above, we face an imperative to not hold up the transition. I think we have been clear about that from the beginning, which was delayed from when it should have happened due to some of the factors I note above. So: my interpretation has always been as follows: Making ICANN's operations more generally accountable, and the whole organisation more outward looking and open, is very important - but our job in WorkStream 1 has been to put in place the structural features of a new accountability settlement that will give us the chance to achieve that in WorkStream 2. To put it another way: we have to constrain ourselves to building the levers in this WS1 process that will allow the broader changes to approach that are needed and will be on the table in WS2, and then the first of the new ATRT reviews. Do you share this understanding of why we have limited our focus? Interested in people's thoughts on this. Want to know if I am out on a limb! thanks Jordan [1]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/18/us_government_stages_another_iana_in... -- 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 _______________________________________________ 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, Now I know that it is not a failing memory of our colleague, but he employs a rather standard tactic to allege what he knows to be untrue. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jun 23, 2015, at 00:48, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
NTIA has posed some very legitimate questions and I expect the CCWG will assess and address them as part of our ongoing community consensus-building process. This is healthy and in no way detracts from our work to date.
Our final consensus recommendation will be more refined and defensible thanks to the questions received from NTIA and the ICANN Board. I understand we may also receive questions this week from the GAC. We should welcome and address them all.
Regarding the need to get it done and done right....last October in Los Angeles, NTIA and ICANN together recommended bifurcation of our work into WS-1 and WS-2 to enable our ability to meet their preferred transition timelines. That's exactly what we've embraced and exactly what we should strive to deliver. The latest timeline (as described this morning by Fadi) anticipates finalization and approval of the CCWG WS-1 around the Dublin ICANN meeting in late October...4 months from now. We should be able to deliver a proposal by that date that meets the community's needs and NTIA's criteria.
Upon further reflection, it strikes me that our colleague may, in fact, prefer the IANA stewardship transition not happen at all. If memory serves, we have yet to receive a constructive recommendation or substantive contribution from him. Under what specific circumstances would he consider the transition appropriate or desirable? What exactly does "get it right" mean to our colleague? Would a Board-approved FOI for ccTLDs address any of our colleagues' opaque but persistent concerns?
Regards, Keith
On Jun 22, 2015, at 6:11 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
he's wrong. As usual.
We need to get it right. Not get it done.
Never mind that Strickling has pronounced himself very clearly and repeatedly.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jun 22, 2015, at 17:24, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
I certainly agree with your interpretation, Jordan. The pressing nature of the transition dictates we limit our function to empowering the community and not trying to solve every challenge of ICANN accountability. There’s a great deal that can and should be done to improve the accountability of the organization as a whole including operational improvements and metrics, facilitating periodic participation in policy development and greater use of data in policy development as well as establishing a culture of continuous improvement (working on those two!).
But we can't do that in WS1
Jonathan Zuck President ACT: The App Association http://Www.ACTonline.org
From: Jordan Carter Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 5:19 PM To: Accountability CCWG
Hi all
I had the dubious pleasure of reading a post by one of our participants which got me thinking a range of things[1].. some of them constructive :-)
One is something I wanted to test others' views on.
Both in Kieran's piece and in the other feedback from various conversations and comments, there's a clear current of both staff/management accountability and ICANN entities/organisations accountability as needing work.
Now, I agree with that - I think the openness of this ICANN system is very poor, due to many things - the ridiculous time demands it makes on people to understand how it works (something none of our proposals materially complicates), the density and extent of the information, the rushed pace of many discussions, the ICANN way of doing multiple things at once, etc etc.
I also think the culture across the organisation is relatively inwardly focused... and that the Board has a job to do in building a culture and practice of accountability and community engagement in parts of the staff.
But those are the views of an insider/outsider: someone whose job links him to this ICANN system, but who has only (!) attended six meetings of ICANN. Others of you will have different perspectives.
To the crux of my point: while I would really like us to tackle all the above, we face an imperative to not hold up the transition. I think we have been clear about that from the beginning, which was delayed from when it should have happened due to some of the factors I note above.
So: my interpretation has always been as follows:
Making ICANN's operations more generally accountable, and the whole organisation more outward looking and open, is very important - but our job in WorkStream 1 has been to put in place the structural features of a new accountability settlement that will give us the chance to achieve that in WorkStream 2.
To put it another way: we have to constrain ourselves to building the levers in this WS1 process that will allow the broader changes to approach that are needed and will be on the table in WS2, and then the first of the new ATRT reviews.
Do you share this understanding of why we have limited our focus?
Interested in people's thoughts on this. Want to know if I am out on a limb!
thanks Jordan
[1]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/18/us_government_stages_another_iana_in...
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
"Making ICANN's operations more generally accountable, and the whole organisation more outward looking and open, is very important - but our job in WorkStream 1 has been to put in place the structural features of a new accountability settlement that will give us the chance to achieve that in WorkStream 2. To put it another way: we have to constrain ourselves to building the levers in this WS1 process that will allow the broader changes to approach that are needed and will be on the table in WS2, and then the first of the new ATRT reviews. Do you share this understanding of why we have limited our focus?" Yes, completely Cheers, Roelof From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: maandag 22 juni 2015 17:19 To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] A question about WS1 v WS2 Hi all I had the dubious pleasure of reading a post by one of our participants which got me thinking a range of things[1].. some of them constructive :-) One is something I wanted to test others' views on. Both in Kieran's piece and in the other feedback from various conversations and comments, there's a clear current of both staff/management accountability and ICANN entities/organisations accountability as needing work. Now, I agree with that - I think the openness of this ICANN system is very poor, due to many things - the ridiculous time demands it makes on people to understand how it works (something none of our proposals materially complicates), the density and extent of the information, the rushed pace of many discussions, the ICANN way of doing multiple things at once, etc etc. I also think the culture across the organisation is relatively inwardly focused... and that the Board has a job to do in building a culture and practice of accountability and community engagement in parts of the staff. But those are the views of an insider/outsider: someone whose job links him to this ICANN system, but who has only (!) attended six meetings of ICANN. Others of you will have different perspectives. To the crux of my point: while I would really like us to tackle all the above, we face an imperative to not hold up the transition. I think we have been clear about that from the beginning, which was delayed from when it should have happened due to some of the factors I note above. So: my interpretation has always been as follows: Making ICANN's operations more generally accountable, and the whole organisation more outward looking and open, is very important - but our job in WorkStream 1 has been to put in place the structural features of a new accountability settlement that will give us the chance to achieve that in WorkStream 2. To put it another way: we have to constrain ourselves to building the levers in this WS1 process that will allow the broader changes to approach that are needed and will be on the table in WS2, and then the first of the new ATRT reviews. Do you share this understanding of why we have limited our focus? Interested in people's thoughts on this. Want to know if I am out on a limb! thanks Jordan [1]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/18/us_government_stages_another_iana_in... -- 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
participants (8)
-
Barrack Otieno -
Burr, Becky -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Drazek, Keith -
Jonathan Zuck -
Jordan Carter -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Roelof Meijer