[CCWG-ACCT] Minority Reports
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Jul 30 14:45:18 UTC 2015
Thanks for this response. I was in some ways being ironic, indeed as an
observer it seems to me that this schedule, frenetic as it is, has been
imposed internally. There are of course US political drivers for it,
but since, as you point out, more and more it appears this will be ICANN
3.0, it seems to me there is a responsibility to slow down and follow a
proper multi-stakeholder process.
In my view, precluding all those who cannot sign on to day and night
meetings and constant highly technical legal document revision defeats
the multi-stakeholder process. I have a hard time following the flow,
and I am a native english speaker used to legal document analysis. It
is not fair to those who come with other languages and legal traditions
to buckle them onto this roller coaster and expect them to keep up.
Simply my opinion.
Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-07-30 3:54, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> On 07/30/2015 03:02 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> As one of the folks who does not have the massive amount of time
>> required to participate in these important negotiations, but is
>> nevertheless very interested, may I submit the following:
>> 1. I agree with Chris, this is a point of fundamental fairness. Slow
> I agree.
>> 2. As I think it was George S has said, there is never time to do it
>> right, but always time to do it over. Why not negotiate for more time
>> to complete the report?
> Negotiate with whom?
> What I see is a conflict of evidence. .NZ (Jordan) is stating that we
> need to stick to the timetable because of external requirements, as
>> 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.
> Firstly it is NOT the USG. I heard Mr Strickling say this, in person.
> But I will agree that itt does come, as you say, from within ICANN
> itself. That is exactly self-created urgency/
> I cannot see how the technical community can set the schedule on on
> what is, essential, the construction of ICANN 3.0 and I'd be grateful
> for a pointer to who, and how, set the schedule in this way.
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community