Bonjour Rafik, Thanks to you for these comprehensive and intelligent responses. I find them quite to the point and agree with all of them. I'm looking forward to meeting you. Best regards, Alain On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > hello Alain, > > Thanks for replying, > > Excellent clarifications. Yes, as a new person myself that came to JAS in >> the late stages, I did find it hard sometimes to get the full meaning or >> appreciate the agenda of on-going discussions and understand the full >> complexity of the issues. Without moderation of comments on the list, I >> found sometimes that the "debate" got lost on side issues and, at times, the >> tone of comments by a few participants was occasionnally unpleasant in the >> sense that it did not rest on evidence/facts but more on beliefs and edged >> on contempt or at least disrespect at times - >> > > I am little bit surprised that you made those comments on NCSG ML but I > understood your concerns. > > well the moderation is the borderline with censorship. Personally, I am > sensitive to that especially coming from country which applied censorship > under several "reasons" and I am against it. in JAS WG, the co-chairs cannot > refrain participants from speaking freely and they chose avoid interference > as they are expected to be neutral in the management of the process and > focus only to let the WG reach consensus (speaking for myself I decided to > not take personal positions in different issues discussed in the WG and > only focus on chairing work and it was not easy because my interest in the > topic). > > yes there were few members whom emails or interventions in calls sounds > harsh, they even criticized the co-chairs in their way to manage. we need to > take care of element like cultural differences, language barrier, > personalities which can led to misunderstanding and sometimes frustration. > moderation and censorship would be the bad solution for that as it would > amplify the issues and create a injustice and unfairness feeling . the > important is to ease the situations and let the WG work. I think at the end > the WG worked well and the report is good proof of that. > > what better way to end a debate!? Sometimes the meaning of these comments >> did not seem relevant and certainly lost me by the use of super-technical >> linguo, oodles of acronyms or seemingly obscure issues not properly >> explained by those apparently in the know. >> > > ICANN is plenty of acronyms :) > > >> There was also, on occasions, some rigidity of positions by some >> influential participants at times. >> > > the co-chairs let people to discuss the issues and trying to find common > ground by rewording the related in the report and at the end we made last > call and we decided about the level of consensus . it was long and painful > but needed due process. > > I found the twice a week frequency of conference calls did not allow >> enough time to reflect properly and contribute substantially in-between >> calls. >> > > we had many times discussion about the best way, using ML? maybe it is > better to track of all contributions in wiki spaces? having two calls > because pressure of time? etc we mixed the several solutions and processes , > we tried other, we were flexible on that. some people dont like wiki and use > mostly the ML. others find more easily to intervene in calls. people have > different habits and the like tools more than others. but we allowed > different way for interventions and in the last weeks a draft report was > available before each calls so people can read and comment it . at the last > stage, people did a full-review and the annotated parts were highlighted and > discussed in calls. > hopefully with more ICANN support for different tasks , we could get > comments and contributions and then discuss them in calls following a > defined schedule. > > >> I obviously limited my comments to my areas of comfort and expertise and >> enjoyed the steep learning curve. That said, the majority of the work and >> interventions were excellent and I felt proud to be part of the JAS WG, even >> if I was a small part. Good work! Yes the recommendations apply to future >> rounds but many of the details will not be worked out in time for the first >> round, despite best efforts and good intentions - who knows if and when a >> second round will be needed or happen? >> > > nobody know about the next rounds, and that is why we clearly pushed for > implementation for first round. now waiting for the implementation plan and > board decisions and then continuing the work and extending it . > > Anyway, we will see what happens with the first round and it will be >> interesting to see how much "surplus" funding will actually be generated in >> the first round. >> > The first $2 million to be injected by ICANN may never be used in its >> totality or it may prove grossly inadequate? >> > > for the seed funding the JAS WG provided some recommendations how to use > them but also other to get more funding from other sources. > > Rafik, I get your point and you may perhaps agree with me that westerners >> talking about diversity is not a sin per se and probably highly desirable, >> provided they also walk the talk! >> > > I dont have problem with westerners talking about diversity, that is fine > but I expect to see the discourse applied in practice and I think that you > agree with me on that. > > Thanks again, > > Best, > > Rafik > > >> >>> >>>> ALAIN BERRANGER, NCSG/NPOC >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of >>>>> Avri >>>>> Doria >>>>> Sent: Friday, 30 September 2011 5:21 p.m. >>>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>>> Subject: Question 3: Issues over the next years >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> Avri >>>>> >>>>> Question 3: What do you foresee as the most important issue for the >>>>> NCSG >>>>> during the next year. 2 years? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA >>>> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/> >>>> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, >>>> www.schulich.yorku.ca >>>> Trustee, GKP Foundation, www.globalknowledgepartnership.org >>>> Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ >>>> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 >>>> Skype: alain.berranger >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA >> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/> >> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, >> www.schulich.yorku.ca >> Trustee, GKP Foundation, www.globalknowledgepartnership.org >> Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ >> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 >> Skype: alain.berranger >> >> > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Trustee, GKP Foundation, www.globalknowledgepartnership.org Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger