[] TAS Interruption - Update (17 April 2012)

[Nicolas Adam]

No resistance, but I sense (and share) a concern about the politics of 
representation (the art of presenting an issue or fact in a certain 
light) that may befall ICANN as a result of this 
potentially-most-likely-normal-security-problem. That and the legal 
backlashes too. I'm not saying its cool to have a biding system where 
you can get info on some other bidder's iterations. But, what can you 
do, you just fix it and restart from there.

Since it most definitely comes into the realm of ICANN "politics" ― but 
not policy, as McTim rightfully contended ― we do have to discuss it. If 
only to learn of it ourselves.

But I read most take here as complementary, all working to better 
ICANN's political situation, and all showing an attachment to the ICANN 
system that is truly nice to behold.

Its a rarity, really.

So I do hope the 'glitch' was handled properly, and i encourage our 
requests for information and action that may help ICANN navigate the 
harsh political waters it always is on. I would advise, though, that we 
should be careful about talking about the glitch as if it was a major 
f$%?& up, lest we turn it into a major f#$%?& up in the minds of 
everyone (not that i have delusions of grandeur about our power to shape 
global opinion but, truly, ICANN's fame is so small it does not need us 
to half-suggest, even unwittingly, that it should be worst than it is).

</late-night-out>

On 4/19/2012 9:55 AM, 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
>>>>>