[CCWG-ACCT] RESEND: Impact assessment questions on CCWG Proposal

[Roelof Meijer]

"It looks at best ill-considered. It looks at worst like a deliberate effort to undermine the CCWG."

Just to make sure: that’s not a fact, but a personal opinion. One that I, for one, do not share at all and find very unconstructive and irresponsible as a reaction to input to the CCWG.

Best,

Roelof

From: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>
Date: vrijdag 19 juni 2015 13:28
To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>
Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RESEND: Impact assessment questions on CCWG Proposal

Bruce,

It is curious that this was not submitted as part of the public comment period.

Why is the Board (and the staff) working on a parallel process as shown by this document?

It looks at best ill-considered. It looks at worst like a deliberate effort to undermine the CCWG.

Interested in your response.

Jordan

On 18 June 2015 at 21:42, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>> wrote:
Resending as my original post was to the wrong mailing list:

Hello All,

In the public comments from the Board at:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04may15/msg00049.html

The Board noted that it would be useful to have an impact analysis where the costs, benefits, and alternatives to proposals are weighed to assure that the design of the solution for each issues is the most efficient, least burdensome on the community , and the most cost-effective solution.

We have prepared the attached detailed list of questions to help the CCWG with that impact analysis.     Many of the questions likely have straight forward answers that can be prepared as part of a "FAQ" on the final proposal, and some questions really highlight trade-offs that need to be made, and the questions aim to help flesh out those trade-offs.

Every major change to a system, usually results in some secondary effects.   Often we can live with those secondary effects, but it is useful to think how to mitigate some of these secondary effects in the proposal.

The Board hopes these will be helpful to the group in its full day session in Buenos Aires and welcomes hearing from the CCWG on Sunday.

Unfortunately I don't arrive in Buenos Aires until Tuesday evening - but will endeavour to spend as much time as possible with you all in Buenos Aires and to help clarify any concerns raised by Board members.

I also intent to attend the face-to-face meeting in July.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

CCWG Board Liaison








_______________________________________________
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




--
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
InternetNZ

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Skype: jordancarter

A better world through a better Internet

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150619/987b7a59/attachment.html>