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

Fri Jun 19 17:27:18 UTC 2015

> The Board must have known, however, that submission of hundreds of questions about the proposal the night before a face to face meeting would likely not be seen as the most constructive manner in which to contribute to the conversation.

No. On the contrary. I personally pushed to have the document sent out IN TIME for the session today. I thought that there would be a real problem if we waited until later. 

Do you seriously imagine that if we had thought that sending the questions out would ‘not be seen as the most constructive manner…’ that we would have sent them out? Seriously? 

And BTW, there are not hundreds of questions.

Cheers,

Chris

> On 20 Jun 2015, at 03:17 , Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
> 
> hi Roelof, all
> 
> The more input we have the better. I share what I think is a widely held view that we have an obligation to deal with material that arrives as best we can. I take that attitude for granted.
> 
> Chris on this list and in the meeting this morning has assured all of us the intention is to be constructive, and I accept that.
> 
> The Board must have known, however, that submission of hundreds of questions about the proposal the night before a face to face meeting would likely not be seen as the most constructive manner in which to contribute to the conversation.
> 
> If my language was too strong and went beyond making that point, then I both withdraw it and apologise for it. 
> 
> Jordan
> 
> 
> 
> On 19 June 2015 at 14:05, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>> wrote:
> "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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jordan Carter
> 
> Chief Executive 
> InternetNZ
> 
> 04 495 2118 <tel:04%20495%202118> (office) | +64 21 442 649 <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Skype: jordancarter
> 
> A better world through a better Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <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/20150620/07cce77c/attachment.html>