[CCWG-ACCT] Time to make a decision (was Re: Responses to Rafael's Questions)
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sat Feb 6 19:12:39 UTC 2016
I fully understand your frustration as I am aware that Parameter and Number
commnuities which have provided their reponse to transition to ICG more
about 13 month agoare anxiously waitng for the CCWG.-
tHIER PATIENCE HAS LIMIT.
tHE PROCESS IS too SLOW
But let us try to find a convincing responce to Rafael and Jorge
2016-02-06 19:53 GMT+01:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 09:31:03PM +0000, Perez Galindo, Rafael wrote:
> > For that reason, I believe it should be very carefully analyzed and
> assessed, from an implementing and legal POV. Such a decision cannot be
> taken in a rush, without considering its consequences and possible side
> I agree it should be carefully analysed and contemplated, but that
> analysis and contemplation should take place before the next call not
> dedicated to Rec. 11 (my calendar seems to think that's Tuesday).
> The CCWG needs to come to a close and ship something -- even a report
> out that there's no solution would be better than more delay. There
> is simply no more time to dither. The transition (or its failure) is
> waiting on this CCWG's output. The operational communities need to
> know what their next available range(s) of action will be.
> Moreover, if the GAC really cannot accept this proposed compromise, it
> seems at least to me that the hope of any compromise ever being
> reached is roughly zero. Therefore, the CCWG members should vote on
> something and move on. I vastly prefer consensus, but in the
> community where I usually work we would have declared this consensus
> rough some time ago and closed the discussion.
> Best regards,
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community