[CCWG-ACCT] Quality of our proposal will suffer from this pace that leaves no time for consideration and meaningful evaluation

[Jordan Carter]

hi all

I wanted to share my thoughts on this topic as many others have done.

Overall I am uncomfortable with the overall pace of our work, but think we
can make it work for us, for the cwg, and for the community.

I only think this because we have changed our timetable and our process to
give ourselves much more time - from a final comment doc being finalised on
6 April to a second comment doc being finalised in July, and a whole
additional ICANN meeting cycle to talk with the community.

While the detail of the work we are doing is complex, we do have time to do
it right.

We also have given ourselves time, in my view, to share our core direction
and proposals with the community in the right level of detail by the end of
this month.

It is vital that we make clear what this first comment document is
soliciting - an affirmation of direction or a production of alternative
ideas for us to explore.

I would like a more gentle pace, and I would like more time -- we are not at
the point right now where more time wont help.

But I also want this transition to happen, and I don't want our
accountability work to slow it unnecessarily.

I've seen enough of the legal comment and had enough conversations with you
all to be confident of what we are proposing as a legitimate package to ask
our communities about. I don't especially like it, but I have not seen
divides or gaps of a scale that demand another schedule rewrite.

None of this should be taken as a reflection on those who have a different
view - I'm just sharing my opinion.


Cheers
Jordan

On Tuesday, 14 April 2015, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> I must join in the chorus of voices saying that this compressed timeline
> is not going to produce a quality proposal.  Sure, we can slap something
> together, which only a small handful have thought about, but we won't get
> anywhere close to doing our best work, or even a good proposal at this pace.
>
> We just don't have the time to think through all of the issues that must
> be thought through and to have answers to the questions that are
> foundational to the rest of our work.  The confusion about what is actually
> being proposed and then advice that doesn't address what is under
> consideration is but one example of how the quality of our work is
> suffering by the frenetic pace.
>
> Either this group is in charge of its own processes, or it isn't.  It is
> beginning to look like the group is not in control, as imaginary imposed
> "deadlines" are the main driving consideration for us now.  Not quality.
> This is a grave mistake.  We simply must take the time to think all of this
> through and engage with the community on these crucial matters.  That is
> the only way to get a quality result.  The rush job to meet imaginary
> deadlines is creating greater problems every day and will only exacerbate
> as we go forward.
>
> I remain committed to participating in a dozen or so calls a week, but I'm
> under no illusion that this last-minute cram job will be any more effective
> at building global governance institutions than it is to college freshman
> learning on the night before their final exam.
>
> Best,
> Robin
>


-- 
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150414/f9c513fa/attachment.html>