<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Jordan<br>
<br>
I think the question about delay is the choice between:<br>
- Making significant changes based on the board comments and
watering down major accountability mechanisms - this will cause
delay in any case. <br>
- Rejecting board's comments in order to save some of the
recommendation we made (or go on with the current proposal) and face
the risk of delay if the board will bring the issue of GPI, etc. <br>
Basically, "lesser evil" choice. <br>
I rather prefer the second option since it looks to me that in any
case there is no other choice but delay (or is there?). I would
rather resist the idea of making the proposal worse by incorporating
all the feedback given by the board.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Tanya <br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16/12/15 09:22, Jordan Carter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK2bTy9RWdoBFju4ELZdOg_Gy4ci76cYAXBUr1AD-gCi6nsxnA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Hi all, Nigel: a couple of points in line below.<br>
<br>
On Wednesday, 16 December 2015, Nigel Roberts <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net">nigel@channelisles.net</a></a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
On 12/16/2015 03:57 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
> tests. So the fundamental quality of the work is not in
question.<br>
<br>
I regret to say that I am afraid it is.</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't agree, but I may have not been quite clear. More time
and work will always lead to higher quality. But the current
proposal works.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> be clear - and that is the basis on which I have been happy
to accept<br>
> the truncated process for this phase.<br>
<br>
By 'truncate process' you mean the consistent, deliberate and
largely successful attempts to subvert the Chartered Process.</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>No: I don't agree the shortened comment period does any such
thing. </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
><br>
> Third, the drivers. To me the following have helped leave
me able to<br>
> deal with the compressed timeframe:<br>
><br>
> - pressure from senior ICANN staff and directors to "get it
done" - and<br>
> clear paintings, as recently as Dublin, of "horror"
scenarios if the<br>
I don't understand this statement.<br>
<br>
Firstly, the alleged pressure to 'get it done at all costs' does
not appear to emanate from the Board. It comes from unstated and
unnamed actors.</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If the Icann board allows its staff to argue for things it
does not support, that tells an interesting story.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I do not agree with the Board's bombshell tactics in Santa
Monica.<br>
<br>
I do not agree with some of the Board's more recent fundamental
objections, published on the 14th.<br>
<br>
But I submit, the Board would have done neither of these things
if it was hell bent on "get 'er done" at all costs.<br>
<br>
Therefore I feel that's a misrepresentation.</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As above.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Furthermore, I fail to see how the (very real) pressure on the
WG allegedly from the Board (doubtful, see above) can give you
comfort.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Where did I express comfort? The point of my email has been
to signal in the clearest possible terms my *discomfort* with
the pressure that has been applied.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><snip> </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br>
> - a new intervention now with further substantive changes
proposed, some<br>
> of which are fundamental to the Third Draft (esp. the human
rights,<br>
> voting thresholds, inspection rights and IANA budget) that
cannot be<br>
> incorporated without further delays to the process.<br>
<br>
<br>
Are you saying that you prefer no delay, to creating an ICANN
that has no obligations to respect fundamental rights?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I prefer sticking with the current proposa and no delay, to
delay and weakening that commitment. </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> cannot imagine numbers and protocols being happy about
further time.<br>
> (That is a deliberate understatement. I think they would be
furious.)<br>
><br>
<br>
Personally, to borrow a phrase often used by a much more
critical observer of the process, "I do not give a dead rat's
fuzzy behind" how furious they get. It is not for them to
interfere in how the names community works.</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You are welcome to take that point of view, but since Icann
accountability is tied up with the transition, and the
transition affects all three communities, I think it is probably
an unreasonable one for the ccwg as a whole to take.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><snip></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Numbers and protocols don't need ICANN. I think they will look
with some bemusemnt on what we are up in the names part, but the
fact is, their area is easy, and ours isn't.</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That's fine, but NTIA has very clearly told the other two
communities that in fact they do need ICANN - that they won't
accept a transition that splits the Iana functions into
different operators.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> - do you think substantive changes such as those of the
Board would<br>
> require delays if adopted following the close of public
comments?<br>
><br>
<br>
Jordan, this a clever formulation, but its designed to predicate
the answer. In other words 'it begs the question'</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>No, Nigel, it does not, and it is not better put by your
version - which certainly does beg the question.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On my view the answer to the question I posed above is
'yes'. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
A better way of putting is, is "Should we do this right, or
should we accept a defective proposal. Which do you prefer?"<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't believe the proposal is defective. I believe it would
become worse if some of the feedback the board has offered was
incorporated.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jordan </div>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Jordan Carter<br>
Chief Executive, InternetNZ
<p>+64-21-442-649 | <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a></p>
<p>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity<br>
</p>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>