[CCWG-ACCT] Call(s) on Thursday

[George Sadowsky]

> On Sep 11, 2015, at 4:28 PM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at actonline.org> wrote:
> 
> George,
> I mentioned that possibility on the call with the board. Fadi suggested we’re trying to do too much during the transition. Given the relative importance of building a better ICANN to the largely symbolic gesture of an IANA transition, if we are unable to reach consensus, the answer clearly is a delayed transition. That said, I wouldn’t want to lose momentum on this discussion or the impetus that the NTIA announcement has provided. That’s always the balance. So the question is whether we can delay the transition and maintain momentum on the far more important accountability exercise.
> Jonathan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/29/15, 7:21 AM, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of George Sadowsky" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Nigel,
>> 
>> What follows is totally my personal opinion.
>> 
>> I am less than a mere participant, having joined this conversation essentially too late to be meaningfully informed and involved.
>> 
>> However, I do share with you the magnitude of the changes that are being proposed, along with inadequate time to explore their ramifications.  I would rather see a solid governance structure for the future and a delayed transition as opposed to a transition that meets the current deadline and a a untested and incomplete governance structure that seriously harms the organization.
>> 
>> In the 1970s Fred Brooks, the designer of the IBM 360 series, wrote a book called "The Mythical Man Month,"  Its very good reading, with application to a lot of current day issues.  One of its chapters is titled, "There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over."  I worry that this will be the outcome of the current CCWG exercise.
>> 
>> George  
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 29, 2015, at 4:27 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> As a mere participant I have found it almost impossible to join the calls due to the vast number of them and the release of important documents no more than hours before.
>>> 
>>> If I was cynical, I would suggest this method of working was deliberately exclusionary.
>>> 
>>> As several other participants know from their membership of another extremely important and potentially controversial WG, there is another, better, way.
>>> 
>>> But that would incompatible with the self-created urgency.
>>> 
>>> I am beginning to become seriously worried that major changes will be made to the ICANN structure and IANA relationship without the time for due consideration, just because there's a US Presidential election in the office.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 07/29/2015 09:05 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
>>>> I have a previous engagement at 17:00 UTC.
>>>> 
>>>> And as previously I object against having 2 or more calls on the same day.
>>>> 
>>>> greetings, el
>>>> 
>>>> On 2015-07-29 08:23, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> The poll is now closed. Staff will proceed to schedule _two calls
>>>>> for Thursday 30 July_:
>>>>> 
>>>>>  * 11:00 – 13:00 UTC
>>>>>  * 17:00 – 19:00 UTC (this call may need to be extended depending on
>>>>>    progress made)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please look forward to calendar notices. The Agenda will follow later
>>>>> today.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Grace
>>>> [...]
>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community