[CCWG-ACCT] Quality of our proposal will suffer from this pace that leaves no time for consideration and meaningful evaluation

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Tue Apr 14 09:06:14 UTC 2015


I agree with this.  Yes, we have a lot to to do, but in many cases it is
detail and tightening up the ideas.  Having the comments of our myriad
communities will help us know that whether are on the right track and
may even give us clues on how to finish up the work.

One of the things about the tail of a a project is it can go on for a
very long time while every I is crossed and t dotted.  Being forced to a
deadline helps.

As for likening this to a student's cramming for an exam, as with that
student, we had time for more intense work earlier in our schedule, but
it wasn't until the deadlines were looming that we really bit into the task.

I support the efforts being made to meet the deadlines and do not think
that this is the time to let up on the effort.


On 14-Apr-15 04:00, Drazek, Keith wrote:
> I agree with Jordan here. It's important we produce a directional
> document that can be shared with our respective communities. The
> sooner we do this, the sooner we can make adjustments if needed. We
> have made tremendous progress and we need to keep up the momentum, if
> not the pace. Thanks to all who are carrying the heaviest loads.
> Regards,
> Keith
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 14, 2015, at 8:01 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
>> hi all
>> I wanted to share my thoughts on this topic as many others have done.
>> Overall I am uncomfortable with the overall pace of our work, but
>> think we can make it work for us, for the cwg, and for the community.
>> I only think this because we have changed our timetable and our
>> process to give ourselves much more time - from a final comment doc
>> being finalised on 6 April to a second comment doc being finalised in
>> July, and a whole additional ICANN meeting cycle to talk with the
>> community.
>> While the detail of the work we are doing is complex, we do have time
>> to do it right.
>> We also have given ourselves time, in my view, to share our core
>> direction and proposals with the community in the right level of
>> detail by the end of this month.
>> It is vital that we make clear what this first comment document is
>> soliciting - an affirmation of direction or a production of
>> alternative ideas for us to explore.
>> I would like a more gentle pace, and I would like more time — we are
>> not at the point right now where more time wont help.
>> But I also want this transition to happen, and I don't want our
>> accountability work to slow it unnecessarily.
>> I've seen enough of the legal comment and had enough conversations
>> with you all to be confident of what we are proposing as a legitimate
>> package to ask our communities about. I don't especially like it, but
>> I have not seen divides or gaps of a scale that demand another
>> schedule rewrite.
>> None of this should be taken as a reflection on those who have a
>> different view - I'm just sharing my opinion.
>> Cheers
>> Jordan 
>> On Tuesday, 14 April 2015, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>     I must join in the chorus of voices saying that this compressed
>>     timeline is not going to produce a quality proposal.  Sure, we
>>     can slap something together, which only a small handful have
>>     thought about, but we won't get anywhere close to doing our best
>>     work, or even a good proposal at this pace.
>>     We just don't have the time to think through all of the issues
>>     that must be thought through and to have answers to the questions
>>     that are foundational to the rest of our work.  The confusion
>>     about what is actually being proposed and then advice that
>>     doesn't address what is under consideration is but one example of
>>     how the quality of our work is suffering by the frenetic pace.
>>     Either this group is in charge of its own processes, or it
>>     isn't.  It is beginning to look like the group is not in control,
>>     as imaginary imposed "deadlines" are the main driving
>>     consideration for us now.  Not quality.  This is a grave
>>     mistake.  We simply must take the time to think all of this
>>     through and engage with the community on these crucial matters. 
>>     That is the only way to get a quality result.  The rush job to
>>     meet imaginary deadlines is creating greater problems every day
>>     and will only exacerbate as we go forward.
>>     I remain committed to participating in a dozen or so calls a
>>     week, but I'm under no illusion that this last-minute cram job
>>     will be any more effective at building global governance
>>     institutions than it is to college freshman learning on the night
>>     before their final exam.
>>     Best,
>>     Robin
>> -- 
>> Jordan Carter
>> Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>> +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150414/8f0b407b/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list