Hi,

I would also add that we might want to raise our voice in a demand for more information.

Using my imagination as a once software engineer who spent years chasing glitches, we called them bugs, i know how the tiniest little bug in the SW can have a huge effect.  And my imagination is running overtime based on my own experience in small bugs with big effects.

There is another assumption being made, that I ind problematic: that is that it is the people who created the system that are the ones hunting and auditing the glitch and its effects.   Again if my experience is anything to draw on, they have long since bought in an advanced group of specialist hunters/fixers.  I would be curious to know if that was the case.  ICANN has among its various contract crews some amazingly competent people, I trust (and hope I am right) that they have made outreach to the appropriate set of outside specialists.

Besides, now that Rod has joined the glitch response team, as advertised in a ICANN tweet, we now know that this is something of presidential proportion.  Hence there is most definitely something to be sen here.  And while I appreciate the daily messages telling us they are working on it and everything will be ok, I would some real information.

ICANN still has this notion that it needs to hold things close to the vest in order to stay out of trouble.  Years of trying to convince the organization that real transparency is the best solution have not yet really been groked, or become the world view of the organization, so this is another opportunity for leading ICANN toward transparency . 

avri

On 19 Apr 2012, at 09:55, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:

> Hopefully... But is there a resistance in our community (NCSG) to
> discuss this? We should not speculate, we should move along, this is
> just a glitch, even Rolls Royce does dumb things etc, are indications I
> am wrong in trying to open up the debate?
> 
> Avri rightly recognizes this is a major event, but that we should wait
> for more details. I am OK with this, but while waiting we do no harm in
> thinking of possible scenarios and consequences for which we will be
> called to position ourselves.
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 04/19/2012 10:28 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>> Doesn't seem much point in speculating, blaming until the facts are
>> known.  Perhaps it was pretty much unforeseeable, just bad luck (like
>> Airbus' wings crack, Rolls Royce engines blow up…)  Or it might have
>> been the result of dumb decisions.  I think given the money involved
>> --already in ICANN's account from applicants, the money applicants
>> have spent preparing, business plans, etc-- there won't be a cover-up.
>> Applicants will want answers and expect they'll nag until the answers
>> make sense (or they'll go to the courts.)  And I'm anyway of the
>> happy-set who believes ICANN anyway wouldn't cover things up :-)
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Adam
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> With due respect for McTim's esprit de corps for what he dismisses as a
>>> technical problem, my main worry is the pile of legal cases Icann might
>>> have to confront because of this "simple glitch" (so simple, in fact,
>>> that has the entire organization running around for a week).
>>> 
>>> fraternal regards
>>> 
>>> --c.a.
>>> 
>>> On 04/18/2012 05:15 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> And some of us have reflexive protective instinct that seems to indicate no cIr manager can do wrong.
>>>> 
>>>> At this point there most certainly is something to be seen here.  This was not a simple glitch that was fixed in a day.  This is a major event that is still ongoing with no end in sight.  I do not beleive in judging before the whole story is reveled, but do insist that the whole story be revealed.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 18 Apr 2012, at 16:02, McTim wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do we actually know this?
>>>>> 
>>>>> of course not, this list just has to reflexively kick ICANN in the
>>>>> 'nads when they are already on the ground....for me this whole TAS
>>>>> thing is mountain out of a molehill....nothing to see folks, kindly
>>>>> move along.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> 
>>>>> McTim
>>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>>>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>