[CCWG-ACCT] Call(s) on Thursday
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Thu Jul 30 00:12:46 UTC 2015
I am happy to accept we disagree on this point regarding the reason for the
pace of this process. I am confident of my position.
On the final para, in any document editing process that involves 160+
people, there are certain choices. Either to do things openly and
iteratively, and thereby consuming a lot of time, or instead to send some
wise heads away to do the drafting and perfect things.
We're doing it the way we are obliged to by our agreed charter process and
by the demands the community has that these things be done openly.
It may be presumptuous, but I suspect you would object to the second
On 30 July 2015 at 11:59, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:
> you are quite wrong.
> Neither the USG nor the technical Community has imposed a deadline, nor
> has ICANN, but even if it had it didn't matter.
> This is evidently quite self imposed, predominantly by the Co-Chairs, and
> to be honest I am neither clear about their motivation, or do I
> particularly care. That certain interests dominate the proceedings is
> reflected in the voluminous record.
> This convoluted, obfuscated rush job is not going to achieve the mandate
> set by the Charter.
> Taking more time to refine its details would most certainly not achieve
> much, I grant you that, but then I personally have believed for a while and
> stated so, that we are doing this wrong.
> And your last paragraph plain does not make sense. If they have been same
> why are we having numerous calls this week and even a F2F meeting in Paris
> about them, then?
> I doubt you would accept such a methodology if your company depended on
> the outcome. And, the only reason why .NZ doesn't is that is fortunate in
> that it has an understanding with its very reasonable government.
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
> On Jul 29, 2015, at 20:39, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
> Nigel, you could be cynical, or you could not be.
> I would far rather we had had more time to do this process. But the powers
> that be have imposed a timeline on us. It is not self-created urgency in
> the slightest. It is urgency that comes from, among other places, ICANN
> itself; the United States Government; parts of the technical community who
> have wanted to be without the USG link for a very long time.
> Please don't assert there's some kind of conspiracy here, because I don't
> know anyone who thinks that the timeframes for our work have been perfect.
> The participants' best efforts, and the excellent legal advice we have
> had, gives me great confidence that the proposal we are fining up on will
> not have serious unintended consequences.
> Taking another year would not mean an infinitely better proposal. The
> writing might end up more elegant, but the analysis and the project is the
> work already of years of reflection and debate by many groups.
> I'll close with a quite dull procedural point - the documents that you are
> not getting much time to review for these calls are generally a) making
> tiny, incremental changes from previous versions, and b) have been
> substantially the same for weeks. Nothing is being "sprung" on anyone right
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community