[] TAS Interruption - Update (17 April 2012)

Thu Apr 19 16:46:05 CEST 2012

I agree with Avri. Hyperbole and accusations aside, this is something
that justifies a request for more detailed information rather than just
general updates. 

My suggestions: 
- Constituency chairs/EC may wish to consult each other as to whether
to put in joint request; 
- SG chair/EC could reach out to other GNSO SG chairs to find out if
they have asked and if not, whether they intend to do so; 
- we ask SSR Review Team if they plan to investigate or ask ICANN for a
more detailed explanation. 

Cheers 
Mary

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584 
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with
the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of
New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have
changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu.
For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law,
please visit law.unh.edu 

>>> 

From:  
Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> 

To: 
<NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> 

Date:  
4/19/2012 10:39 AM 

Subject:  
Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [] TAS Interruption - Update (17 April 2012) 

Hi

I would also add that we might want to raise our voice in a demand for
more information.

Using my imagination as a once software engineer who spent years
chasing glitches, we called them bugs, i know how the tiniest little bug
in the SW can have a huge effect.  And my imagination is running
overtime based on my own experience in small bugs with big effects.

There is another assumption being made, that I ind problematic: that is
that it is the people who created the system that are the ones hunting
and auditing the glitch and its effects.   Again if my experience is
anything to draw on, they have long since bought in an advanced group of
specialist hunters/fixers.  I would be curious to know if that was the
case.  ICANN has among its various contract crews some amazingly
competent people, I trust (and hope I am right) that they have made
outreach to the appropriate set of outside specialists.

Besides, now that Rod has joined the glitch response team, as
advertised in a ICANN tweet, we now know that this is something of
presidential proportion.  Hence there is most definitely something to be
sen here.  And while I appreciate the daily messages telling us they are
working on it and everything will be ok, I would some real information.

ICANN still has this notion that it needs to hold things close to the
vest in order to stay out of trouble.  Years of trying to convince the
organization that real transparency is the best solution have not yet
really been groked, or become the world view of the organization, so
this is another opportunity for leading ICANN toward transparency .

avri

On 19 Apr 2012, at 09:55, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:

> Hopefully... But is there a resistance in our community (NCSG) to
> discuss this? We should not speculate, we should move along, this is
> just a glitch, even Rolls Royce does dumb things etc, are indications
I
> am wrong in trying to open up the debate?
>
> Avri rightly recognizes this is a major event, but that we should
wait
> for more details. I am OK with this, but while waiting we do no harm
in
> thinking of possible scenarios and consequences for which we will be
> called to position ourselves.
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 04/19/2012 10:28 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>> Doesn't seem much point in speculating, blaming until the facts are
>> known.  Perhaps it was pretty much unforeseeable, just bad luck
(like
>> Airbus' wings crack, Rolls Royce engines blow up…)  Or it might
have
>> been the result of dumb decisions.  I think given the money
involved
>> --already in ICANN's account from applicants, the money applicants
>> have spent preparing, business plans, etc-- there won't be a
cover-up.
>> Applicants will want answers and expect they'll nag until the
answers
>> make sense (or they'll go to the courts.)  And I'm anyway of the
>> happy-set who believes ICANN anyway wouldn't cover things up :-)
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
wrote:
>>> With due respect for McTim's esprit de corps for what he dismisses
as a
>>> technical problem, my main worry is the pile of legal cases Icann
might
>>> have to confront because of this "simple glitch" (so simple, in
fact,
>>> that has the entire organization running around for a week).
>>>
>>> fraternal regards
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>> On 04/18/2012 05:15 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> And some of us have reflexive protective instinct that seems to
indicate no cIr manager can do wrong.
>>>>
>>>> At this point there most certainly is something to be seen here. 
This was not a simple glitch that was fixed in a day.  This is a major
event that is still ongoing with no end in sight.  I do not beleive in
judging before the whole story is reveled, but do insist that the whole
story be revealed.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18 Apr 2012, at 16:02, McTim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do we actually know this?
>>>>>
>>>>> of course not, this list just has to reflexively kick ICANN in
the
>>>>> 'nads when they are already on the ground....for me this whole
TAS
>>>>> thing is mountain out of a molehill....nothing to see folks,
kindly
>>>>> move along.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> McTim
>>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is.
A
>>>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120419/780ba5e1/attachment-0001.html>