Forwarded at request and on behalf of Eberhard, Kind regards, Bart From: <cctldworld-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cctldworld-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com<mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday 16 December 2015 07:54 To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Cc: "cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org<mailto:cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org>" <cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org<mailto:cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org>>, ccNSO Council <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>>, Michael Silber <mike.silber@icann.org<mailto:mike.silber@icann.org>>, "ccnso-members@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-members@icann.org>" <ccnso-members@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-members@icann.org>>, "cctldworld@icann.org<mailto:cctldworld@icann.org>" <cctldworld@icann.org<mailto:cctldworld@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Cctldworld] [ccTLDcommunity] [ccnso-members] Re: [ccnso-council] Board comments on CCWG Proposal It's a bloody mess, cobbled together dominated by the representatives of the parties to gain most, in a process that defies comprehension, never mind the impression you are trying to create, at best a work in progress, so obfuscated that you need a Ph.D. to understand it, and as evident from the mailing list, not even understood by the authors. There is only one thing in life I hate more than having to agree with Herr Professor Dr (Milton) Mueller on something and that's having to agree with the Board... ...on anything... ...in principle. And now both happens at the same time? Dear Staff, if this does not go through to the Council list, please make sure that those Council,Members not allowed to subscribe to ccNSO lists also get it. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On 16 Dec 2015, at 05:44, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: hi all, hi Mike: On 15 December 2015 at 21:02, Mike Silber <silber.mike@gmail.com<mailto:silber.mike@gmail.com>> wrote: Chris +1 On 15/12/2015 08:55, Chris Disspain wrote: Does ICANN want this done quickly (all the pushes we get in private), or does it want this done right? My preference is the latter. Personally, I support your preference. It strikes me as strange that we are ignoring a third option: get the critical issues done right and done now and get the less-critical (non-critical?) done right but not done now. Unfortunately it seems to me that each CCWG participant has been allowed to have their own definition of what is critical and has horse traded with others to arrive at this omnibus situation. Mike I have to assume that this comment comes from the fact you haven't engaged all through the CCWG's process. Many people's preferences have been pushed to WorkStream 2 or taken out of the script. The WS1 proposals are the minimum set that the CCWG (a group of 160+ people from across and beyond the ICANN community) believes are required to allow the IANA stewardship transition to occur. It is unfortunate that you and others continue to assert that there is some sort of "grab bag" going on. In other words: the current set of recommendations *does* represent "the critical issues". It's a coherent, limited set of changes - about as far from an "omnibus" as can be imagined. I'd encourage all of us to display some confidence in the multistakeholder process we're all engaged with, and specifically that words which rightly or wrongly can be read as suggesting a lack of such confidence, or a rubbishing of the quality or integrity of its outputs, be avoided? best Jordan