Hi Carlos

Neither of us is saying it's not a big mess that won't have to be cleaned up.  Just that it's not obvious it requires a new round of organizational reinvention navel gazing at this particular juncture. 

But I'm glad you think do anything merrily!  

BD 

PS:  Please, Milton is not a political scientist, he just plays one.  We like states (not of nature).   He's actually a former art student gone bad, i.e. degree in communication.

On Apr 21, 2012, at 2:25 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:

> Wow, Milton, this is really amazing. This is not a simple
> "implementation mistake". This involved serious breach of privacy of
> expensive applications which are part of investment strategies by
> business organizations in most cases. There is an obvious liability
> issue here involved. It cannot be dismissed as just "a computer form
> that did not work as expected", and cannot be left in the hands of the
> same staff which caused the problem. And you are not a computer
> scientist, you are a political scientist as far as I recall, which
> surprises me even more.
> 
> And Bill Drake merrily embarks on the dismissing argument, what is going
> on with you people? :(
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 04/21/2012 03:54 AM, William Drake wrote:
>> I agree.  The governance model has issues, but this is a separate
>> matter.  We've just gone through the whole GNSO restructuring,
>> ramping up the AoC process, etc.  ICANN doesn't need and probably
>> couldn't handle another extended bout of navel-gazing debate about
>> reinvention right now.  It needs to let the dust settle for awhile,
>> get new leadership in place, get new gTLDs up and running, sort out
>> IANA, advance the "internationalization" and outreach efforts, etc.
>> Plenty on the plate already.
>> 
>> I can't imagine that the business folks that are laying out big cash
>> and maneuvering around new names aren't already screaming about the
>> screw up, or that the management won't be compelled to explain what
>> happened and assure everyone it hasn't skewed the application process
>> for/against anyone.  If there's going to a joint request for info
>> from SO/AC chairs or whatever, fine, but it's not obvious to me NCSG
>> needs to spend a bunch of cycles on this unless folks are looking for
>> something to do.
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> On Apr 19, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> 
>>> I am not sure I agree with the premise that an implementation
>>> mistake by the staff constitutes grounds for completely reinventing
>>> and rethinking ICANN. Can someone explain the logic of that to me?
>>> For example, if the Capitol building of one of the world's first
>>> democracies, e.g., the USA, had collapsed due to incompetent
>>> construction, would it mean that we should re-think the nature of
>>> democracy?
>>> 
>>> I think they need to fix the mistake, fire those responsible, and
>>> move on.
>>> 
>>> The root of the problem, to my mind, is not the governance model
>>> but, in this order: a) management problems; b) the rube
>>> Goldberg-like complexity of the new TLD program, and c) the more
>>> than a decade-long delay in accepting a policy, which means that we
>>> are dealing with a sudden flood of 1000+ applications rather than a
>>> steady trickle of 10 or so a year, and which, like b), is a product
>>> of the intense politics swirling around the program.
>>> 
>>> Remember that this has never been done before.
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ICANN needs to rethink and reorganize itself!
>>>> 
>>