[CWG-Stewardship] On (not making) late changes (was Re: [client com] ICANN Bylaws on Budget - DT-O Input Needed)

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 09:59:39PM +0000, James Gannon wrote:

> Which is why during extensive discussions over months of CWG work we
>agreed on what we have in the proposal. I really don’t think any of
>us have time to be revisiting things like this again.

Hear, hear.  I think it is in general a bad idea to try to revisit
principles or anything like that now: several of these details are the
result of a great deal of previous thinking and working over
previously.  Moreover, we're not anyway in a position to change the
consensus document: it's already been out for comment, approved, and
shipped by the ICG and ICANN.

If something for implementation is actually at odds with the report,
we should raise concerns.  If, however, something now seems like an
issue in the report that might need fixing, well, we'll need to cope
with that change later unless we want to stop the transition
happening.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com