[] TAS Interruption - Update (17 April 2012)

[Adam Peake]

Agree, except not the SSR part.  It has its mandate from the AoC.  Created
for a specific purpose, I think best to let it finish that job (and would
be terrible if they all had conflicts :-))

But beginning a conversation about the problem and how best to review would
be good, suggesting the convening an independent panel to review what
happened could be part of that. But first let the problem get fixed, see
how ICANN responds: they aren't daft, expect there are people in the
organization thinking the same way about a review etc.  And in a few weeks
there should be a new CEO.

Best,

Adam



On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:46 PM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:

>  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/20120420/2a7a486b/attachment-0001.html>