Hi all, Nigel: a couple of points in line below.<br><br>On Wednesday, 16 December 2015, Nigel Roberts <<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net">nigel@channelisles.net</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 href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><p>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity<br></p></p>