Re: [soac-mapo] Revised draft Charter Terms of Reference for your review

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill, I have to disagree with you. 

I don't believe it is unrealistic to expect ICANN to move just a little faster 
when the rest of the Internet is moving at lightning speed.  ICANN processes 
should be judged not by what is comfortable internally, but about what's 
necessary to make it relevant vis-a-vis the rest of the Internet.  In the two 
years since new gTLDs were supposed to launch, Facebook has added 300 million 
users -- more than all domain names in gTLDs and ccTLDs combined. One of the 
characteristics of the desired outcome, for me, is that it isn't irrelevant 
because it occurs too far down the road.  If we want the public Internet to 
succeed, we have to be at least as useful and responsive as some of the private 
ones springing up.  Don't forget, there's nothing irreplaceable about the DNS 
addressing system, which needs to stay relevant and engaged. 

The process proposed is only experimental because we have some real-world 
considerations, namely an impetus to get new gTLDs done. In the past, this 
might have been handled by a lengthy process that would culminate in the GAC 
considering the progress of it 3 times a year when they show up at ICANN 
meetings.   We're trying to get the GAC involved at an earlier stage (as per 
their request) to facilitate more rapid policy development.  

In my view, it doesn't make sense to take an experiment that is designed to 
speed things up and say that it should be taken at a slow pace because it's an 
experiment. 

Antony

On Aug 26, 2010, at 3:04 AM, William Drake wrote:

> 
> Hi
> 
> On Aug 25, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> In which case, and if others agree with this position, we should declare in 
>> the ToR that it is planned to end with the Sept 13 report.  My issue was 
>> that the question was left dangling.  So it was not a question of it running 
>> over, but rather a question of not stating what the intention was for post 
>> Sept 13. Though, it seemed to me, the original intent of the ToR was that it 
>> not end on Sept 13 - hence the call for a preliminary report.
>> 
>> There are good reasons to say Sept 13 and it is over.  And I think there are 
>> good reasons to say Sept 13 is preliminary (whether we call it that or not) 
>> and that we expect to continue. And I think there is a good reason to say 
>> that after Sept 13, the group will review  and decide what comes next.
> 
> The latter two points resonate with me.  I think it's unrealistic to try to 
> tightly bound to a short timeline a somewhat experimental process on a 
> divisive issue involving multiple groups with their own dynamics, some of 
> which require more time than others.  I think we need to have whatever 
> dialogues are needed to move toward great mutual understanding and adapt the 
> process to the desired outcome.  If "preliminary" bothers people ok but I 
> would support Avri's proposed sentence.
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
>