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! >>>> >>