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

Edward Morris egmorris1 at toast.net
Tue Apr 14 11:29:03 UTC 2015

I stand in complete agreement with Robin on this matter and, in fact, this
morning have expressed my concern regarding timing to staff of a minority
member of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation. This process seems be to driven not by CCWG members but
rather by external considerations.We are in the process of rebuilding the
entire scheme of a multinational private corporation and, as non lawyers,
are attempting to do so relying upon legal advice that lags rather than
leads the conversation. IMHO retaining independent counsel, not so called
expert advisors whom we have barely used, should have been our first
priority when setting up this group. It didn't happen and today we are
paying the price.

I do not believe there is consensus on this list for this current work
plan. In a bottom up model that should mean something but so far seems not
to. When people like Roelof and Robin are saying the current work rate is
not acceptable they should not be ignored. Both are key players in this
effort whose opinions carry weight, at least with me. Through their hard
work they have earned the right to be listened to perhaps more than many,
yet their comments seem to be brushed off rather than respected, considered
and acted upon.

We have one chance to get this right. The first attempt to launch ICANN  in
the '90's likewise was done in a rushed manner and produced results so
chaotic, in the opinion of some,  the governing structure had to have a
complete re-do. Given today's high salience of IG issues I suspect if we
get this wrong there will be no chance for a re-do. The root will split and
it will be our fault.

The Heritage Foundation, a proud member of my stakeholder group, has
suggested that the NTIA needs to extend the IANA contract until September
2017 (
) so that we have time to do our work properly. I don't think we need that
long but we do need substantially more time than we are currently being
 given to get this job done right in a bottom up, participatory manner
where due consideration is given to the intricacies and widespread
implications of the changes we are about to propose.


On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Robin Gross <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
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150414/7086b0c4/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list