[CCWG-ACCT] RESEND: Impact assessment questions on CCWG Proposal

[Chris Disspain]

Jordan,

Actually, the Board’s public comment made reference to us providing a set of questions in respect to impact assessment. There have been several posts to the CCWG list referencing this and ‘hoping’ the questions would follow soon. 

I’m at a loss to understand why you would think this input is or is intended to be anything but helpful. I’m also confused as to why you would refer to this as a parallel process. 

For the record, this note from me is sent as a Board member. 


Cheers,

Chris

> On 19 Jun 2015, at 21:28 , Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
> 
> Bruce,
> 
> It is curious that this was not submitted as part of the public comment period. 
> 
> Why is the Board (and the staff) working on a parallel process as shown by this document?  
> 
> It looks at best ill-considered. It looks at worst like a deliberate effort to undermine the CCWG.
> 
> Interested in your response.
> 
> Jordan
> 
> On 18 June 2015 at 21:42, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>> wrote:
> Resending as my original post was to the wrong mailing list:
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> In the public comments from the Board at:
> 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04may15/msg00049.html <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04may15/msg00049.html>
> 
> The Board noted that it would be useful to have an impact analysis where the costs, benefits, and alternatives to proposals are weighed to assure that the design of the solution for each issues is the most efficient, least burdensome on the community , and the most cost-effective solution.
> 
> We have prepared the attached detailed list of questions to help the CCWG with that impact analysis.     Many of the questions likely have straight forward answers that can be prepared as part of a "FAQ" on the final proposal, and some questions really highlight trade-offs that need to be made, and the questions aim to help flesh out those trade-offs.
> 
> Every major change to a system, usually results in some secondary effects.   Often we can live with those secondary effects, but it is useful to think how to mitigate some of these secondary effects in the proposal.
> 
> The Board hopes these will be helpful to the group in its full day session in Buenos Aires and welcomes hearing from the CCWG on Sunday.
> 
> Unfortunately I don't arrive in Buenos Aires until Tuesday evening - but will endeavour to spend as much time as possible with you all in Buenos Aires and to help clarify any concerns raised by Board members.
> 
> I also intent to attend the face-to-face meeting in July.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> CCWG Board Liaison
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jordan Carter
> 
> Chief Executive 
> InternetNZ
> 
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> 
> Skype: jordancarter
> 
> A better world through a better Internet 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150619/25ca704a/attachment.html>