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
--
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA