Question 3: Issues over the next years

Sat Oct 15 02:48:26 CEST 2011

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 <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>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:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
>>>>> Avri
>>>>> Doria
>>>>> Sent: Friday, 30 September 2011 5:21 p.m.
>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111014/d96b06ab/attachment-0001.html>