[CCWG-ACCT] A question about WS1 v WS2

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Agree with Jonathan
We must concentrate on priority actions
Pls do not involve  us in something which is not pressing . We have littlke
time
We do not want to spent hours and hours on these like those hours that we
wasted on UA.
We were misled and we do not want to do it again
The working method and priorities must be identified and decided at the
level of the main group and not at the level of working parties
Regards
Kavouss

2015-06-23 0:23 GMT+02:00 Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack at gmail.com>:

> Hi Colleagues,
>
> In agreement with Dr. Lisse, we need to get it right nonetheless the
> essence of strategy is choosing what not to do. (Michael Porter)
>
>
>
> On 6/23/15, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:
> > Dear Co-Chairs,
> >
> > he's wrong. As usual.
> >
> > We need to get it right. Not get it done.
> >
> > Never mind that Strickling has pronounced himself very clearly and
> > repeatedly.
> >
> > el
> >
> > --
> > Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
> >
> >> On Jun 22, 2015, at 17:24, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at actonline.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I certainly agree with your interpretation, Jordan. The pressing nature
> of
> >> the transition dictates we limit our function to empowering the
> community
> >> and not trying to solve every challenge of ICANN accountability.
> There’s a
> >> great deal that can and should be done to improve the accountability of
> >> the organization as a whole including operational improvements and
> >> metrics, facilitating periodic participation in policy development and
> >> greater use of data in policy development as well as establishing a
> >> culture of continuous improvement (working on those two!).
> >>
> >> But we can't do that in WS1
> >>
> >> Jonathan Zuck
> >> President
> >> ACT: The App Association
> >> Www.ACTonline.org
> >>
> >> From: Jordan Carter
> >> Sent: ‎Monday‎, ‎June‎ ‎22‎, ‎2015 ‎5‎:‎19‎ ‎PM
> >> To: Accountability CCWG
> >>
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> I had the dubious pleasure of reading a post by one of our participants
> >> which got me thinking a range of things[1].. some of them constructive
> >> :-)
> >>
> >> One is something I wanted to test others' views on.
> >>
> >> Both in Kieran's piece and in the other feedback from various
> >> conversations and comments, there's a clear current of both
> >> staff/management accountability and ICANN entities/organisations
> >> accountability as needing work.
> >>
> >> Now, I agree with that - I think the openness of this ICANN system is
> very
> >> poor, due to many things - the ridiculous time demands it makes on
> people
> >> to understand how it works (something none of our proposals materially
> >> complicates), the density and extent of the information, the rushed pace
> >> of many discussions, the ICANN way of doing multiple things at once, etc
> >> etc.
> >>
> >> I also think the culture across the organisation is relatively inwardly
> >> focused... and that the Board has a job to do in building a culture and
> >> practice of accountability and community engagement in parts of the
> staff.
> >>
> >>
> >> But those are the views of an insider/outsider: someone whose job links
> >> him to this ICANN system, but who has only (!) attended six meetings of
> >> ICANN. Others of you will have different perspectives.
> >>
> >> To the crux of my point: while I would really like us to tackle all the
> >> above, we face an imperative to not hold up the transition. I think we
> >> have been clear about that from the beginning, which was delayed from
> when
> >> it should have happened due to some of the factors I note above.
> >>
> >> So: my interpretation has always been as follows:
> >>
> >> Making ICANN's operations more generally accountable, and the whole
> >> organisation more outward looking and open, is very important - but our
> >> job in WorkStream 1 has been to put in place the structural features of
> a
> >> new accountability settlement that will give us the chance to achieve
> that
> >> in WorkStream 2.
> >>
> >> To put it another way: we have to constrain ourselves to building the
> >> levers in this WS1 process that will allow the broader changes to
> approach
> >> that are needed and will be on the table in WS2, and then the first of
> the
> >> new ATRT reviews.
> >>
> >> Do you share this understanding of why we have limited our focus?
> >>
> >> Interested in people's thoughts on this. Want to know if I am out on a
> >> limb!
> >>
> >>
> >> thanks
> >> Jordan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [1]:
> >>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/18/us_government_stages_another_iana_intervention/
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jordan Carter
> >>
> >> Chief Executive
> >> InternetNZ
> >>
> >> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
> >> 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Barrack O. Otieno
> +254721325277
> +254-20-2498789
> Skype: barrack.otieno
> http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150623/b4b7f85a/attachment.html>