Fwd: [ccnso-members] Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1)
Fellow-Councillors I am becoming increasingly concerned about the road that the IANA transition is taking, and in particular, the fundamental issue of Accountability. I, as have other council members, have had the privilege on working with Dr Lisse on the Delegation WG and the Framework of Interpretation. Under Keith's chairmanship we fully explored and respected differing viewpoints, and did not need to resort to ad hominem complaints at any time. I have also had the dubious privilege of reading the CCWG email list traffic as the WG has gone about its work. It makes me sad, that having worked in a successful WG, that this equally important topic cannot be run in a similar way. Colleagues, from all I see, Dr Lisse's concerns are accurate, albeit expressed in his "usual charming bedside manner". The Charter of the WG DOES appear to be being ignored. Deadlines DO appear to be being imposed artificially and unilaterally. In Westmister Parliaments, there is a controversial procedure used by Governments known as a "Guillotine motion" in order to restrict debate and force through Government business and the Government view. For example, in Canada, see http://www.parl.gc.ca/procedure-book-livre/document.aspx?sbdid=68a2776a-f2a5... It now emerged that that ICANN can Guillotine the Public accountability discussion, without consulting other CCWG membersm, merely on the say-so of two staff members who are not named. This is quite wrong, in my view. But even if it were right (which it is not) the PERCEPTION is all wrong. It fails 'the smell test'. It's well, UNACCOUNTABILITY. To my mind, the road ICANN is taking is leading me to seeking a meeting with my government with a view to asking them to make formal representations to NTIA that ICANN do not appear to be proposing the required accountability measures to permit transition. If they can't be accountable when proposing accountability measures, they sure as eggs are eggs won't be accountable once they've got complete control. To my mind, we need to be showing the sort of leadership that won us the ccNSO in its present form, in 2000-2005. Thoughts? Any suggestions on what Council, and the ccTLD community should be doing? We should CERTAINLY be looking to discuss this deeply in BA. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ccnso-members] Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1) Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 09:24:25 +0100 From: Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na> Reply-To: el@lisse.na Organization: Dr Eberhard W Lisse To: ccnso-members@icann.org, cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org, cctldworld@icann.org CC: accountability-cross-community@icann.org, directors@omadhina.net Dear Byron, Dear Colleagues, it is unfortunate that Mr Weill now becomes emotional. The Charter clearly states: Section V: Rules of Engagement Decision-Making Methodologies: In developing its Proposal(s), work plan and any other reports, the CCWG-Accountability shall seek to act by consensus. Consensus calls should always make best efforts to involve all members (the CCWG-Accountability or sub-working group). The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree In the absence of Full Consensus, the Chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report. I do not see any room for ambiguity here ("any other reports", "involve all members", "designating each position" minority viewpoints "shall be included in the report") I most certainly not have filed countless objections (the Co-Chairs were probably too busy ignoring them rather than them) and most certainly not "since it started". I have diligently participated and most constructively which was stated by all three Co-Chairs (when it suited them, obviously) during and after the Frankfurt and Istanbul meetings. I have however since Singapore come to believe that we are doing this wrong and have voiced this in Singapore repeatedly. My objections mainly concern two issues, namely the refusal to deal with the fundamental issues of IANA/ICANN accountability. And the process ie the rushing to an arbitrary deadline without careful consideration. As a member of the FoI Wg I have participated in what must be considered the yardstick on thorough and considered review and debate. It is telling that instead of dealing with the substance of my concerns, innuendo and allegation are being used. As if it was ok to do whatever one wants to but it was not ok to talk about it. Sadness indeed. I strongly urge ccTLD Managers to soundly reject this rubbish "report" which tinkers on the surface, with the effect of tossing ccTLD Managers a few bones on issues that don't concern them really, and to demand that the fundamental questions that affect us ccTLD Managers are asked and answered. greetings, el On 2015-05-06 06:44, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Byron, Dear Colleagues,
To set the record straight, Dr Lisse's statements about the violation of the CCWG Accountability Charter and the dynamics of the group are a misrepresentation of facts. Speaking of facts, we are more than happy to provide details in response to the accusations as well as explanations we gave to Dr Lisse on the public mailing list, to support our statement.
We would also note for the benefit of readers of these lists that Dr Lisse has filed countless objections against almost everything the CCWG did since it started. Participants and members of the CCWG have expressed to the co-chairs that they consider Dr Lisse's behaviour as an attempt to discredit the work of fellow volunteers and derail the work of the group.
We will not burden everyone on the lists that were cc-ed with details, especially when we have the opportunity to discuss and engage on substance. But we wanted to set this record straight, and express our deep sadness about the use of such a process within the ccTLD community.
That being said, we encourage other ccTLD members and participants in the CCWG to express their views related to the substance of the proposals.
Best, Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill, co-chairs [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
I suggest that we should discuss this issue on the next Council call. I was previously unaware of Dr Lisse’s concerns as I am not currently subscribed to the Members list (see previous trail of emails re Councillors email list subscriptions). Kind regards, Lesley On 6 May 2015, at 10:16, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Fellow-Councillors
I am becoming increasingly concerned about the road that the IANA transition is taking, and in particular, the fundamental issue of Accountability.
I, as have other council members, have had the privilege on working with Dr Lisse on the Delegation WG and the Framework of Interpretation. Under Keith's chairmanship we fully explored and respected differing viewpoints, and did not need to resort to ad hominem complaints at any time.
I have also had the dubious privilege of reading the CCWG email list traffic as the WG has gone about its work. It makes me sad, that having worked in a successful WG, that this equally important topic cannot be run in a similar way.
Colleagues, from all I see, Dr Lisse's concerns are accurate, albeit expressed in his "usual charming bedside manner".
The Charter of the WG DOES appear to be being ignored. Deadlines DO appear to be being imposed artificially and unilaterally.
In Westmister Parliaments, there is a controversial procedure used by Governments known as a "Guillotine motion" in order to restrict debate and force through Government business and the Government view.
For example, in Canada, see http://www.parl.gc.ca/procedure-book-livre/document.aspx?sbdid=68a2776a-f2a5...
It now emerged that that ICANN can Guillotine the Public accountability discussion, without consulting other CCWG membersm, merely on the say-so of two staff members who are not named. This is quite wrong, in my view. But even if it were right (which it is not) the PERCEPTION is all wrong. It fails 'the smell test'. It's well, UNACCOUNTABILITY.
To my mind, the road ICANN is taking is leading me to seeking a meeting with my government with a view to asking them to make formal representations to NTIA that ICANN do not appear to be proposing the required accountability measures to permit transition.
If they can't be accountable when proposing accountability measures, they sure as eggs are eggs won't be accountable once they've got complete control.
To my mind, we need to be showing the sort of leadership that won us the ccNSO in its present form, in 2000-2005.
Thoughts? Any suggestions on what Council, and the ccTLD community should be doing? We should CERTAINLY be looking to discuss this deeply in BA.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ccnso-members] Re: [ccTLDcommunity] Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) - Input Needed on its Proposed Accountability Enhancements (Work Stream 1) Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 09:24:25 +0100 From: Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na> Reply-To: el@lisse.na Organization: Dr Eberhard W Lisse To: ccnso-members@icann.org, cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org, cctldworld@icann.org CC: accountability-cross-community@icann.org, directors@omadhina.net
Dear Byron, Dear Colleagues,
it is unfortunate that Mr Weill now becomes emotional.
The Charter clearly states:
Section V: Rules of Engagement
Decision-Making Methodologies:
In developing its Proposal(s), work plan and any other reports, the CCWG-Accountability shall seek to act by consensus. Consensus calls should always make best efforts to involve all members (the CCWG-Accountability or sub-working group). The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:
a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection
b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree
In the absence of Full Consensus, the Chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report.
I do not see any room for ambiguity here ("any other reports", "involve all members", "designating each position" minority viewpoints "shall be included in the report")
I most certainly not have filed countless objections (the Co-Chairs were probably too busy ignoring them rather than them) and most certainly not "since it started".
I have diligently participated and most constructively which was stated by all three Co-Chairs (when it suited them, obviously) during and after the Frankfurt and Istanbul meetings.
I have however since Singapore come to believe that we are doing this wrong and have voiced this in Singapore repeatedly.
My objections mainly concern two issues, namely the refusal to deal with the fundamental issues of IANA/ICANN accountability.
And the process ie the rushing to an arbitrary deadline without careful consideration. As a member of the FoI Wg I have participated in what must be considered the yardstick on thorough and considered review and debate.
It is telling that instead of dealing with the substance of my concerns, innuendo and allegation are being used. As if it was ok to do whatever one wants to but it was not ok to talk about it.
Sadness indeed.
I strongly urge ccTLD Managers to soundly reject this rubbish "report" which tinkers on the surface, with the effect of tossing ccTLD Managers a few bones on issues that don't concern them really, and to demand that the fundamental questions that affect us ccTLD Managers are asked and answered.
greetings, el
On 2015-05-06 06:44, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Byron, Dear Colleagues,
To set the record straight, Dr Lisse's statements about the violation of the CCWG Accountability Charter and the dynamics of the group are a misrepresentation of facts. Speaking of facts, we are more than happy to provide details in response to the accusations as well as explanations we gave to Dr Lisse on the public mailing list, to support our statement.
We would also note for the benefit of readers of these lists that Dr Lisse has filed countless objections against almost everything the CCWG did since it started. Participants and members of the CCWG have expressed to the co-chairs that they consider Dr Lisse's behaviour as an attempt to discredit the work of fellow volunteers and derail the work of the group.
We will not burden everyone on the lists that were cc-ed with details, especially when we have the opportunity to discuss and engage on substance. But we wanted to set this record straight, and express our deep sadness about the use of such a process within the ccTLD community.
That being said, we encourage other ccTLD members and participants in the CCWG to express their views related to the substance of the proposals.
Best, Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill, co-chairs [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
I don't understand why any of this remains controversial, and I thought it had been settled. NomCom appointed Council Members should by default be subscribed to the communication lists of the SO of which they are Council Members of. There can be no reason to refuse NomCom Appointed Members access to the ccNSO's main discussion list. Likewise, Council Members who leave their employment with a ccNSO Member remain a council member. According to ICANN bylaws, Councillors serve in a personal capacity. Obviously it is right and propoer that they are unsubscribed if they are subscribed under an address at their previous place of work (this is obvious since the mail will no longer reach them!!). However, I can see no justification for any policy previously adopted by the ccNSO prohibiting access to ANY ccNSO communication meduym by any ccNSO Councillor in either of the above two categories. I therefore formally ask the Chair and Vice-Chairs please to either agree the above and allow the four missing Councillors to be subscribed to the ccNSO lists, or in the case of any doubt, seek the opinion of ICANN's Office of General Counsel. Nigel On 06/05/15 10:23, Lesley Cowley wrote:
s I am not currently subscribed to the Members list (see previous trail of emails re Councillors email list subscriptions).
Nigel, all To date practice has been that the ccNSO members list is for members of the ccNSO only. Subscribing either NomCom appointees on the Council or Councillors who are not (longer) associated with a ccTLD would require a Council decision (see section 10 cNSO meetings Guideline). We as secretariat do not make changes to these email lists without prior Council approval for the change of practices or procedure. From a practical point of view, following your earlier emails, this would have been put on the agenda for the upcoming Council call. As such I understand your request as putting this item either on the agenda for the upcoming council call or requesting an email Council vote. Kind regards, Bart Please note the ccNSO Members meeting Guideline, section 10: 10. The ccNSO Members email list The ccNSO Members will have their own email list, which will be maintained by the ccNSO secretariat. Subscribers to the list are: € ccNSO members for the duration of their membership € L iaisons to the ccNSO Council as defined in Article IX section 3.2 of the ICANN bylaw, for the duration of their designation ; € Observers to the ccNSO Council as defined in Article IX section 3.3 of the ICANN bylaws, for the duration of their designation; € The ccNSO secretariat, and IANA ccTLD liaison € Others, at their request and after approval of the ccNSO Council, for the Duration subscription is granted by the ccNSO Council. This Guideline will be reviewed by Guideline Review Committee On 06/05/15 12:08, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
I don't understand why any of this remains controversial, and I thought it had been settled.
NomCom appointed Council Members should by default be subscribed to the communication lists of the SO of which they are Council Members of. There can be no reason to refuse NomCom Appointed Members access to the ccNSO's main discussion list.
Likewise, Council Members who leave their employment with a ccNSO Member remain a council member. According to ICANN bylaws, Councillors serve in a personal capacity.
Obviously it is right and propoer that they are unsubscribed if they are subscribed under an address at their previous place of work (this is obvious since the mail will no longer reach them!!).
However, I can see no justification for any policy previously adopted by the ccNSO prohibiting access to ANY ccNSO communication meduym by any ccNSO Councillor in either of the above two categories.
I therefore formally ask the Chair and Vice-Chairs please to either agree the above and allow the four missing Councillors to be subscribed to the ccNSO lists, or in the case of any doubt, seek the opinion of ICANN's Office of General Counsel.
Nigel On 06/05/15 10:23, Lesley Cowley wrote:
s I am not currently subscribed to the Members list (see previous trail of emails re Councillors email list subscriptions).
It seems to me that the Guideline Review Committee is a subsidiary committee of the ccNSO. Council is the decision making body of the ccNSO. It makes no sense for a subsidiary body to have the power to exclude members of the Council that created it, unless that power appears in the ICANN By-Laws, which I doubt. It makes no sense for a ccNSO Council who themselves has been excluded by ICANN internal policy from a ccNSO mailing list, then to have a vote on who can be added (including themselves). Even on the literal construction of the words quoted as being ccNSO operating policy (see below) and ignoring for the time being that this guideline is not part of the bylaws, it appears that the ccNSO council is allowed to approve the list membership of ccNSO Councillors. I don't see anything that requires this be done at a Council Meeting so it can be done by email agreement. I therefore ask the three NomCom appointees which of them thinks that they would wish to have membership of any or all ccNSO discussion list to carry out their roles. And that council agree, by email, now, the following :- "that all ccNSO Councillors shall have granted subscription, for the duration of their tenure as Councillor". Of course, if the four Councillors currently barred from the list are happy to wait until the next meeting for a discussion, then I'm happy to amend the above proposal to put that as a Resolution on the agenda for the next meeting. On 06/05/15 11:34, Bart Boswinkel wrote:
€ Others, at their request and after approval of the ccNSO Council, for the Duration subscription is granted by the ccNSO Council.
Dear Nigel, To clarify, the ccNSO meetings Guideline, as well as other guidelines were adopted by the Council, after being developed internally and reflected the practice to that date. The Guidelines and Rules of the ccNSO are (internal) rules and procedures as foreseen in Article IX section 3.11 of the ICANN Bylaws. If I implied that the Guideline review committee (GRC), has to take take a decision, in this particular matter or on changes to Guidelines in general, I apologise for creating such an impression. Of course you are right that the Council is the decision making body with regard to a change or introduction of a guideline. I referred to the GRC as a mechanism to review, update and improve guidelines in general. Kind regards, Bart On 06/05/15 13:40, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
It seems to me that the Guideline Review Committee is a subsidiary committee of the ccNSO.
Council is the decision making body of the ccNSO. It makes no sense for a subsidiary body to have the power to exclude members of the Council that created it, unless that power appears in the ICANN By-Laws, which I doubt.
It makes no sense for a ccNSO Council who themselves has been excluded by ICANN internal policy from a ccNSO mailing list, then to have a vote on who can be added (including themselves).
Even on the literal construction of the words quoted as being ccNSO operating policy (see below) and ignoring for the time being that this guideline is not part of the bylaws, it appears that the ccNSO council is allowed to approve the list membership of ccNSO Councillors.
I don't see anything that requires this be done at a Council Meeting so it can be done by email agreement.
I therefore ask the three NomCom appointees which of them thinks that they would wish to have membership of any or all ccNSO discussion list to carry out their roles.
And that council agree, by email, now, the following :-
"that all ccNSO Councillors shall have granted subscription, for the duration of their tenure as Councillor".
Of course, if the four Councillors currently barred from the list are happy to wait until the next meeting for a discussion, then I'm happy to amend the above proposal to put that as a Resolution on the agenda for the next meeting.
On 06/05/15 11:34, Bart Boswinkel wrote:
€ Others, at their request and after approval of the ccNSO Council, for the Duration subscription is granted by the ccNSO Council.
It seems to me that the Guideline Review Committee is a subsidiary committee of the ccNSO. Council is the decision making body of the ccNSO. It makes no sense for a subsidiary body to have the power to exclude members of the Council that created it, unless that power appears in the ICANN By-Laws, which I doubt.
Nigel, WHAT are you talking about?! Guidelines Review Committee is a working group of the ccNSO. "The purpose of the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee is to review the current guidelines and to ascertain whether they reflect current practices and working methods, identify potential gaps, and based on this analysis propose changes to the current guidelines to the Council." To say that the Guidelines Review Committee has the power to exclude members of the Council from anything is like claiming that FoI working group had the power to exclude ccTLDs from re-delegation. For more info please see http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/grc.htm However, the GRC notes that the current policies do not state that:
NomCom appointed Council Members should by default be subscribed to the communication lists of the SO of which they are Council Members of.
And in its report will suggest the Council to correct the situation by updating the current policies. Thank you! Regards, ]{atrina
On 06/05/15 14:08, Katrina Sataki wrote:> "To say that the Guidelines Review Committee has the power to exclude members of the Council from anything is like claiming that FoI working group had the power to exclude ccTLDs from re-delegation." I think that's exactly what I was saying. On 06/05/15 14:08, Katrina Sataki wrote:
It seems to me that the Guideline Review Committee is a subsidiary committee of the ccNSO. Council is the decision making body of the ccNSO. It makes no sense for a subsidiary body to have the power to exclude members of the Council that created it, unless that power appears in the ICANN By-Laws, which I doubt.
Nigel, WHAT are you talking about?! Guidelines Review Committee is a working group of the ccNSO. "The purpose of the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee is to review the current guidelines and to ascertain whether they reflect current practices and working methods, identify potential gaps, and based on this analysis propose changes to the current guidelines to the Council." To say that the Guidelines Review Committee has the power to exclude members of the Council from anything is like claiming that FoI working group had the power to exclude ccTLDs from re-delegation. For more info please see http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/grc.htm
However, the GRC notes that the current policies do not state that:
NomCom appointed Council Members should by default be subscribed to the communication lists of the SO of which they are Council Members of.
And in its report will suggest the Council to correct the situation by updating the current policies.
Thank you!
Regards,
]{atrina
I don't think this is a decision that could be made by the Chair and Vice Chairs - and would be a decision for the ccNSO Council. I do agree we need to resolve it, and ask that we add this to the agenda of the upcoming Council meeting for decision. My own opinion is that the non-ccTLD members of the ccNSO (e.g. the NomComm appointees) should be subscribed to the ccNSO members lists, but that perhaps this should be in "read only" mode, so that they might see the discussions, but not influence them... Cheers Keith On 6/05/2015 10:08 p.m., Nigel Roberts wrote:
I don't understand why any of this remains controversial, and I thought it had been settled.
NomCom appointed Council Members should by default be subscribed to the communication lists of the SO of which they are Council Members of. There can be no reason to refuse NomCom Appointed Members access to the ccNSO's main discussion list.
Likewise, Council Members who leave their employment with a ccNSO Member remain a council member. According to ICANN bylaws, Councillors serve in a personal capacity.
Obviously it is right and propoer that they are unsubscribed if they are subscribed under an address at their previous place of work (this is obvious since the mail will no longer reach them!!).
However, I can see no justification for any policy previously adopted by the ccNSO prohibiting access to ANY ccNSO communication meduym by any ccNSO Councillor in either of the above two categories.
I therefore formally ask the Chair and Vice-Chairs please to either agree the above and allow the four missing Councillors to be subscribed to the ccNSO lists, or in the case of any doubt, seek the opinion of ICANN's Office of General Counsel.
Nigel On 06/05/15 10:23, Lesley Cowley wrote:
s I am not currently subscribed to the Members list (see previous trail of emails re Councillors email list subscriptions). .
On 6/05/2015 9:16 p.m., Nigel Roberts wrote:
Fellow-Councillors
I am becoming increasingly concerned about the road that the IANA transition is taking, and in particular, the fundamental issue of Accountability.
I, as have other council members, have had the privilege on working with Dr Lisse on the Delegation WG and the Framework of Interpretation. Under Keith's chairmanship we fully explored and respected differing viewpoints, and did not need to resort to ad hominem complaints at any time.
<snip> The working groups I chaired were fortunate to not have hard deadlines, and allowed us the luxury of exploring and teasing out issues from all participants and respondents to the consultations. Sadly, the TLD community has not had this luxury and has been battling a ridiculous timeline on the IANA transition. Cheers Keith
I suggest that the NTIA letter posted just now may be helpful. It states that “We have never viewed the September 30 date as a deadline, but have stated from the start that the transition planning should proceed according to whatever schedule the community sets” Accordingly, I think we should set a different deadline if it is apparent that the current one is creating all sorts of problems. Cheers, Lesley On 6 May 2015, at 23:07, Keith Davidson <keith@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
On 6/05/2015 9:16 p.m., Nigel Roberts wrote:
Fellow-Councillors
I am becoming increasingly concerned about the road that the IANA transition is taking, and in particular, the fundamental issue of Accountability.
I, as have other council members, have had the privilege on working with Dr Lisse on the Delegation WG and the Framework of Interpretation. Under Keith's chairmanship we fully explored and respected differing viewpoints, and did not need to resort to ad hominem complaints at any time.
<snip>
The working groups I chaired were fortunate to not have hard deadlines, and allowed us the luxury of exploring and teasing out issues from all participants and respondents to the consultations.
Sadly, the TLD community has not had this luxury and has been battling a ridiculous timeline on the IANA transition.
Cheers
Keith
Agree Lesley, that we should re-evaluate the timeline in light of this. But what has happened cannot be un-happened and I fear there are some irresolvable differences in perspectives that have arisen. Cheers Keith On 7/05/2015 10:15 a.m., Lesley Cowley wrote:
I suggest that the NTIA letter posted just now may be helpful. It states that “We have never viewed the September 30 date as a deadline, but have stated from the start that the transition planning should proceed according to whatever schedule the community sets”
Accordingly, I think we should set a different deadline if it is apparent that the current one is creating all sorts of problems.
Cheers,
Lesley
On 6 May 2015, at 23:07, Keith Davidson <keith@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
On 6/05/2015 9:16 p.m., Nigel Roberts wrote:
Fellow-Councillors
I am becoming increasingly concerned about the road that the IANA transition is taking, and in particular, the fundamental issue of Accountability.
I, as have other council members, have had the privilege on working with Dr Lisse on the Delegation WG and the Framework of Interpretation. Under Keith's chairmanship we fully explored and respected differing viewpoints, and did not need to resort to ad hominem complaints at any time.
<snip>
The working groups I chaired were fortunate to not have hard deadlines, and allowed us the luxury of exploring and teasing out issues from all participants and respondents to the consultations.
Sadly, the TLD community has not had this luxury and has been battling a ridiculous timeline on the IANA transition.
Cheers
Keith
participants (5)
-
Bart Boswinkel -
Katrina Sataki -
Keith Davidson -
Lesley Cowley -
Nigel Roberts