Showing posts with label Keith Drazek. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Keith Drazek. Show all posts

2016-11-13

News Review: ICANN57 Hyderabad, India, the Elephant in the Room

News Review | ©2016 DomainMondo.com
Domain Mondo's weekly review of internet domain news [pdf]:
1. Feature: ICANN57 Hyderabad, India, the Elephant in the Room; 2. Other matters at ICANN57 (the GAC Communique); 3. CENTR Report on ICANN57; 4. Trump and ICANN, what's the connection? 5. Most popular posts.
1. Feature • ICANN57 Hyderabad, India: the Elephant in the Room
Banksy art exhibit "Barely Legal" in Los Angeles, 16 September 2006.
By Bit Boy - Flickr: The Elephant in the Room, CC BY 2.0
New gTLD .WEB


The dispute over new gTLD .WEB was the elephant in the room at ICANN57, though it was not on the agenda. Afilias, a losing applicant for .WEB in the ICANN last resort auction, raised the issue with the ICANN Board in Public Forum 1 on Saturday, November 5th, when Afilias Executive Chairman, Jonathan Robinson, spoke and reiterated his blog post in CircleID (see below). Later, at the Public Forum 2 on Tuesday, November 8th, a rebuttal was presented by Verisign's Pat Kane (starts at 51:55 in the video above) and later Verisign's Keith Drazek (starts at 1:41:00) who directed the Board to a responsive post on CircleID.com (see below), and then Afilias's Jonathan Robinson addressed the Board again (starts at 1:44:30). Articles published at CircleID.com:
Why Afilias would choose ICANN57 to pursue their objection publicly by lobbying the ICANN Board via ICANN Public Forums, rather than avail itself of the accountability mechanisms inherent in the new gTLD processes, including filing an IRP, is quizzical, if not troubling, particularly since Afilias Executive Chairman Jonathan Robinson, a winner of the ICANN 2016 Leadership Award at ICANN 57, also served as Chair of the ICANN GNSO (Generic Names Supporting Organization) Council for three consecutive terms until 2015, and was Co-Chair of the IANA stewardship transition's CWG-Stewardship. The dot WEB issue is also currently the subject of litigation pending between Ruby Glen (Donuts) and ICANN, and therefore the ICANN Board could not, and did not, respond in any way to the issue during either Public Forum 1 or Public Forum 2. For additional background see: Afilias Challenges New gTLD WEB Auction Results in Letter to ICANN | DomainMondo.com.

2. Other matters at ICANN57 that were on the agenda and discussed:
• GAC Communique (pdf) embedded below, highlighting added:

3.  CENTR publishes its Report on ICANN57 (pdf) (embed below) highlights include:
  • Extended Process Similarity Review Panel (EPSRP) Working Group update
  • Country/territory names and codes
  • PDPs on the retirement of ccTLDs and the review mechanisms for decisions on the delegation, transfer, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs
  • Content Control and DNS
  • Auction Proceeds working group
  • New gTLDs: Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT-RT)
  • Mitigation of Abuse in gTLDs
  • Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
  • New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP
4. Trump and ICANN, what's the connection? Apart from supporting Ted Cruz's effort to derail the IANA transition, Donald Trump or the Trump Organization reportedly owns in excess of 3000 domain names, more info here and here. In addition, see also From Steaks to Fragrances, the Donald’s Trademarks Trump Them All - Law Blog | WSJ.com: Trump's 300+ trademarks.

5. Most popular posts this past week (# of pageviews Sun-Sat) on DomainMondo.com:
  1. News Review [6Nov] | What Is ICANN? | New ICANN Domain Name Transfer Policy
  2. LIVE Breaking Video: Trump Headed to White House, Market Recovers
  3. MacroView [7Nov]: It's All About The US Presidential Election on Tuesday
  4. Rightside $NAME Q3 2016 Results, LIVE Webcast Nov 8, 4:30 pm ET
  5. Trump Win Shocks Political & Media Establishment, Tech & Market Reaction

-- John Poole, Editor, Domain Mondo 

feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo


DISCLAIMER
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2016-03-31

Domain Names, New gTLDs, Present & Future Perspectives, SSIG Video

SSIG 2016:

Video above: Session on Domain Names, New gTLDs, Present & Future Perspectives

The Eighth South School on Internet Governance (SSIG) held at the Organization of American States (OAS) Headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Thursday, March 31, 2016, late afternoon agenda:

15:30 EDT | 3:30pm EDT Present and future perspectives of domain names – New gTLDs
  • Philipp Grabensee, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Afilias
  • Byron Holland, President and CEO, Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA)
  • Keith Drazek, Vice President of Public Policy & Government Relations, Verisign
  • Samanta Demetriu, Vice President of Consulting & Strategy, FairWinds Partners
  • Daniel Fink, Stakeholder Engagement, Sr., Manager Brazil, ICANN
  • Moderator: Olga Cavalli, Academic Director, South School on Internet Governance
17:00 EDT | 5:00pm EDT [not on video]
Welcoming Remarks - Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and
Information and Administrator, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce


More info: http://www.gobernanzainternet.org/   | Twitter: https://twitter.com/hashtag/SSIGOAS




DISCLAIMER
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2015-11-15

IGF 2015 Workshop on the IANA Stewardship Transition (video)


IGF 2015 Day 4 Workshop: IANA Function transition: A new era in Internet Governance?

Georgia Tech Professor Milton Mueller led this IGF2015 workshop on Friday, November 13, 2015, the last day of the Internet Governance Forum 2015. Professor Mueller served on the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) as a representative of ICANN's NCSG (Noncommercial Stakeholders Group).

Topics covered include NTIA (US Government) requirements, ICANN, IANA functions, proposals submitted by the names, numbers, and protocols communities, Internet Root Zone management, ICANN accountability process, workstreams 1 (WS1) and 2 (WS2), GAC (Government Advisory Committee) and Stress Test 18.

Panelists:
  • Jari Arkko, Ericsson Research, IETF Chair, ICG member 
  • Brenden Kuerbis, Postdoctoral researcher, Georgia Institute of Technology
  • Izumi Okutani, Policy Liaison, JPNIC and CRISP team member
  • Gangesh Varma, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University Delhi
  • Mary Uduma, Nigerian Communications Commission and ICG member
  • Keith Drazek, Verisign, Inc. and ICG member
  • Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior, Government of Brazil, GAC representative

Workshop description provided by IGF2015:
  • The IANA functions transition has been organized within the ICANN community. IGF is an appropriate venue to engage a broader range of stakeholder groups and understand their perspective. 
  • This workshop considers the commonalities and differences in the proposals from Names, Protocols and Numbers communities. It evaluates the transition process and discusses how different constituencies have handled the way ICANN combines policy making for Names and the operation of the IANA functions. 
  • The workshop discusses the way the proposal will be received by stakeholder groups not normally part of the ICANN process, such as the US Congress, other governments and other stakeholder groups. How are they reacting to the final IANA functions transition proposal, what are their concerns, is there any interference with the transition? The workshop’s contribution will be to broaden consensus on IANA transition requirements.

Agenda:
  • Opening (5 minutes): The moderator (Milton Mueller) gives a brief overview of the IANA transition, and the ICG (combined) proposal.
  • Introductions (10 minutes): Each panelist is introduced and briefly (1-2 minutes) explains how their stakeholder group relates to the IANA functions operator and what they see as the benefits or problems of the transition.
  • Discussion led by moderator followed by Q&A.

This Session's background as published in advance by IGF2015:
  • IANA functions transition has been the focus of the past year’s Internet governance discussions. The three operational communities who rely on the IANA functions (names, numbers and protocols) were asked to draft proposals on how the transition should take place. By the time the IGF will be held, the final proposal will probably have been submitted by the ICG to the U.S. Commerce Department NTIA, and it will be a suitable period to analyze the proposal’s level of public support, strengths, weaknesses and features in a multi-stakeholder manner at a non-ICANN venue. 
  • The IANA functions transition has been organized within the ICANN community. IGF is an appropriate venue to engage a broader range of stakeholder groups and understand their perspective. 
  • This workshop considers the commonalities and differences in the proposals from Names, Protocols and Numbers communities. It evaluates the transition process and discusses how different constituencies have handled the way ICANN combines policy making for Names and the operation of the IANA functions. 
  • The workshop also discusses the way the proposal will be received by stakeholder groups not normally part of the ICANN process, such as the US Congress, other governments and other stakeholder groups. How are they reacting to the final IANA functions transition proposal, what are their concerns, is there any interference with the transition? The workshop’s contribution will be to broaden consensus on IANA transition requirements.

About IGF 2015:
  • The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is an annual multi-stakeholder forum for policy dialogue on issues of Internet governance. It brings together all stakeholders in the Internet governance debate, including representatives of governments, the private sector, and civil society, as well as members of the technical and academic community, on an equal basis and in an open and inclusive process. Establishment of the IGF was formally announced by the United Nations Secretary-General in 2006, and IGF2006 convened in Oct–Nov 2006.
  • The Internet Governance Forum 2015, #IGF2015, was at João Pessoa, Brazil.
  • The Internet Governance Forum 2015 videos are on YouTube
  • IGF 2015 Transcripts.
See also on Domain Mondo: ICANN Open Forum at IGF 2015: IANA, Globalization, Accountability, Trust




DISCLAIMER
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2015-11-06

Verisign's Keith Drazek: GNSO, IANA, ICANN, WHOIS, New gTLDs (videos)



Video above: Verisign's Keith Drazek reflects on his forthcoming term on the GNSO Council, his experience within ICANN including his previous experience on the ccNSO Council, as well as WHOIS policy, and the new gTLDs Reviews. (source: ICANN; Published on Oct 30, 2015)

Video below: Keith Drazek discusses his representation of the gTLD Registries on the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) during the group’s first meeting in London, 17-18 July 2014. Topics mentioned include Verisign's Role as Root Zone Maintainer as well as Registry operator for .COM and .NET. (source: ICANN; Published on Jul 25, 2014)

Keith Drazek is Vice President of Public Policy and Government Relations at Verisign, Inc., operator of the .COM and .NET domain name registries, Internet Root Zone Maintainer pursuant to an agreement with the US Department of Commerce (NTIA), as well as operator of  two of the world's 13 Internet root servers. Keith has been active in the ICANN community for more than a decade, including his most recent role as Chair of ICANN’s GNSO Registry Stakeholder Group. Prior to joining Verisign in 2010, he worked for ten years at the U.S. Department of State, and ten years in the domain name industry - 2 years at a registrar and 8 years at a registry (Neustar). His experience in the domain name industry includes business development, channel management, government relations, external affairs, and Internet policy development. He studied International Relations at George Washington University in Washington, DC. (primary source: ianacg.org)

See also on Domain Mondo: Verisign, ICANN, Internet Root Zone, Risk Factors to the Root Domain Oct 26, 2015




DISCLAIMER
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2015-10-02

Why the ICANN Board Does NOT Support the Single Member Model

Why doesn't the ICANN Board of Directors support the Single Member Model (SMM or CMSM), which was proposed in CCWG-Accountability's 2nd draft Report?

Keith Drazek, CCWG participant, Chair of the ICANN Registries Stakeholder Group, and Director of Policy for Verisign, Inc. (but not an ICANN Board Member), summarized the reasons on the CCWG-Accountability mail list, which provides a good summary of what listening CCWG members and participants have read, heard and understood. As Domain Mondo has previously noted, some on the CCWG, unfortunately, appear not to be listening (if they ever did), but are close-minded, stuck in groupthink and their collective sunk cost bias, looking to just grab the power they think may be available for exploit in the Single Member Model.

Below is Keith Drazek's summary of what he has read, heard and understood as the "ICANN Board's position," which he shared on the CCWG mail list on September 30, 2015:

"In no particular order, my interpretation of the Board's written comments, what we heard in Los Angeles and from Fadi yesterday is:

-- Introducing a different governance structure, i.e. membership, is new, untested, and cannot be proven to resist capture in the limited time available to meet the September 2016 date.

-- Shifting authority from the Board to an untested membership body is potentially destabilizing and will be difficult or impossible to sell as not introducing risk at a delicate time.

-- If we're going to shift authority, we must also shift a commensurate level of accountability, and the current SOs and ACs do not have sufficient accountability at this time.

-- ICANN and its SOs/ACs need to be safe from capture from outside and from within; empowering the SOs and ACs without clear safeguards is problematic.

-- Concentrating power in a new "sole membership" body is not balanced if it doesn't include all community members, and two groups (SSAC and RSSAC) have said they want to remain advisory.

-- Shifting from consensus-based decision-making to reliance on a voting structure is not consistent with the multi-stakeholder model.

-- The CCWG recommendation is too complex and difficult to explain/understand, so we need to make smaller, incremental changes that are more easily implemented and understood.

-- A recommendation requiring a substantial governance restructuring will suggest that ICANN is currently broken -- a politically risky message going into the transition.

"I'm obviously not in a position to speak for the Board, but that's my non-legalistic reading of the concerns. I'd be happy to be corrected if my interpretation is off-base."--Keith Drazek

Seun Ojedeji, CCWG participant and Non-Commercial Users (NCUC) stakeholder, in response to the above, posted: "Thanks for this, and just for record, the list [above] is what I can naturally add my +1 to in its entirety. Every points are critical and the last is even more critical than any other one."

Later, Keith Drazek also posted: "And just for the record, I was not advocating or supporting the points, just pointing out what will need to be addressed and/or resolved in the next iteration of our proposal."

 See also on Domain Mondo: 



DISCLAIMER
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2015-09-27

ICANN Board Does NOT Support CCWG Proposed Membership Model

"The [ICANN] Board does not support the single member model.  We are unified in wanting to work with the community to find practical solutions to achieve the additional levels of accountability sought by the community including the ability to remove Board members and the whole Board, requiring community approval of bylaws changes, and requiring the Board to work with the community to reach consensus on strategic plans, operating plans and budgets."--ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker, Sept 26, 2015, in "chat" following his statement further below (emphasis added)
Following Chairman Crocker's statements (above and below) at the CCWG meeting, Keith Drazek, Chair of the ICANN Registries Stakeholder Group in the "chat" stated--

Keith Drazek: "I don't think anyone wants to get to a point of brinksmanship between community and Board. We're not there now and we should try to avoid it. That probably means the CCWG needs to assess all the public comments, including the Board's, and try to identify a compromise solution that doesn't compromise our stated goals. Some legitimate concerns have been raised by the Board and others, and we need to address them. Doing so should result in a compromise everyone can live with....consensus."

On Saturday, September 26, 2015, the second day of the CCWG-Accountability F2F LA meeting, ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker informed the CCWG that the proposed single member model a/k/a CMSM model is not supported by the ICANN Board of Directors. Accordingly, CCWG's 2nd draft proposal for ICANN membership may likely fail to achieve the necessary "consensus"-- see "chat" comment of Keith Drazek, Chair of the ICANN Registries Stakeholder Group, above.

 STEVE CROCKER [ICANN Board Chairman]: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE CAN'T EMPHASIZE STRONGLY ENOUGH HOW THANKFUL WE ARE, HOW APPRECIATIVE WE ARE THAT EVERYBODY HAS COME TOGETHER. THIS IS A HASTILY SCHEDULED MEETING, DISPLACED A LOT OF SCHEDULES AND EVERYTHING. AND WE KNOW THAT A LOT OF -- THERE'S A LOT OF ENERGY THAT'S GONE INTO THIS. AND I WANT TO SPEAK -- I WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT THE BOARD'S POSITION AND ATTITUDE ABOUT ALL THIS.

THE TRANSITION IS VERY IMPORTANT. "VERY IMPORTANT" IS NOT THE SAME AS IT DOMINATES EVERY POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE. OUR PRIMARY COMMITMENT, OUR OVERRIDING COMMITMENT IS TO THE INCLUSIVE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL.
IT CANNOT SUPPORT COMPROMISES THAT UNDERMINE THAT MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL. THIS HAS BEEN BUILT UP IN A -- BY ACCRETION IN A WAY OVER 17 YEARS WITH CHANGES AND ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS OVER TIME. EACH OF US SERVES ON THE BOARD FOR THREE-YEAR TERMS. AND EVEN IF WE EXTEND IT OUT AS I HAVE FOR A LONG TIME, EVENTUALLY IT COMES TO AN END. NONE OF US ARE HERE PERMANENTLY. THERE'S NO SENSE IN WHICH THE BOARD HAS A ROLE DISTINCT FROM THE COMMUNITY. WE COME FROM THE COMMUNITY. WE RETURN TO THE COMMUNITY. AND WE LEAVE BEHIND WHAT WE HOPE IS A STRONGER AND MORE VIBRANT OPERATION.

BUT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT AS STRONGLY AS WE ARE SUPPORTIVE AND BELIEVE THAT THE TRANSITION AWAY FROM THE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE ENTIRE WORLD, THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, NOT JUST THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE OF ICANN, IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS PERSISTED FOR A LONG TIME. WE WRESTLE WITH IT. WE CHAFE UNDER IT A BIT. BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN DISASTROUS. SO THAT SETS A KIND OF THRESHOLD FOR WHAT OUR ULTIMATE DECISION PROCESS IS GOING TO BE.

WE THINK THAT WE ARE SO, SO CLOSE TO WRESTLING -- WRESTLING TO THE GROUND TO GETTING AGREEMENTS ON THE BIG THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT HERE ON ACCOUNTABILITY, ON TRANSPARENCY, ON ENFORCEABILITY, ON COMMUNITY POWERS, AND EVEN ABILITY TO REMOVE INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS. YOU MAY THINK THAT THAT'S A THREAT SOMETIMES. WE THINK THAT WOULD BE A RELIEF AS AN ESCAPE. [LAUGHTER ]

ANOTHER KEY THING THAT'S VERY VIBRANT AND VISIBLE TO US IS THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION, THE PREDICATE FOR THE ANNOUNCEMENT MADE A YEAR AND A HALF AGO WAS THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WAS SAYING ICANN IS READY FOR BEING CAST LOOSE. IT DID NOT SAY WE ARE TIRED OF RUNNING IT AND WE HAVE TO FIND SOMEBODY TO SUBSTITUTE FOR OURSELVES. THEY DID SAY, OF COURSE, THEY WANTED A GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT, THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL TO BE COMFORTABLE, TO EVERYBODY TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH THE SYSTEM. AND IT OPENED UP THE DIALOGUE WHICH LED TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY. BUT THEY DID NOT -- AND I SHOULDN'T SPEAK ABOUT WHAT THEY SAID. BUT WE CERTAINLY DID NOT UNDERSTAND AND DON'T BELIEVE THAT CREATING A SUPERSTRUCTURE TO REPLACE THEM IN A CORPORATE SENSE WAS INTENDED, DESIRED, NEEDED, OR APPROPRIATE.

SO WE'RE FEELING OUR WAY VERY GINGERLY THROUGH THIS PROCESS. THE BOARD BELIEVES VERY DEEPLY AND TRIES TO ACT APPROPRIATELY THAT WE REPRESENT AND CARRY OUT THE SENSE OF THE COMMUNITY. WE'RE NOT IN A BASTION POSITION OF DEFENDING OURSELVES AGAINST THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE IN THE END, WE ARE TRYING TO BE REPRESENTATIVES AND CARETAKERS ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE VERY STRONG RESPONSIBILITY. AND THAT RESPONSIBILITY IS CAREFULLY SEPARATED FROM EACH OF THE STAKEHOLDERS AND CONSTITUENCIES. WE TAKE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST VERY SERIOUSLY IN THE SEVERAL INSTANCES WHERE A PARTICULAR BOARD MEMBER HAS A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP OR DOESN'T HAPPEN, BUT A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP, IT HAS TO BE DISCLOSED AND THEY GET REMOVED FROM THE DECISION PROCESS AND SO FORTH.

WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME FRAMEWORK OF PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF DISCIPLINE IF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY. AND THAT'S FINE. THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE TAKE SERIOUSLY.

SO THE COMMENTS THAT WE SUBMITTED SOME TIME AGO, WE DID REPRESENT A BOARD POSITION. WE DID A QUICK CHECK THIS MORNING, AND 100% AGREEMENT THAT WHAT WE SAID THEN STILL STANDS.

WE REALLY, REALLY DO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS SO CLOSE THAT IT'S THERE. AND, AS I SAID, WE ARE VERY STRONGLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE PRINCIPLES AND THE OBJECTIVES. AND WE'RE DOWN TO WHAT IS SOMETIMES SAID WITH A LITTLE BIT OF IRONY, THESE ARE JUST IMPLEMENT DETAILS BUT THE IMPLEMENT DETAILS ARE, IN FACT, QUITE IMPORTANT.

I WAS REFLECTING AS I SAT IN MEETINGS -- IT IS ALMOST EMBARRASSING -- ALMOST 50 YEARS AGO TO BRING INDIVIDUALS TOGETHER TO BUILD THE ARPANET I WAS TERRIBLY CHAGRINED FAIRLY EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS WE HAD -- FIRST TIME WE HAD PEOPLE FLYING ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE U.S. TO COME TO A MEETING. AND THE MEETING FELL APART BY NOONTIME BECAUSE THE SOLUTION THAT I HAD BEEN PUSHING WAS REJECTED BY THE VERY PEOPLE I THOUGHT THAT I WAS DRAWING IT FROM. I WAS TAKING MODELS ABOUT THE WAY THE ADVANCED SYSTEMS AT MIT WORKED AND THE MIT PEOPLE CAME AND SAID "WE CAN'T DO THIS" MUCH THE WHOLE MEETING WAS IN SHAMBLES. I WAS A LOT YOUNGER THEN AND IT RATTLED ME. SOMEBODY TOOK ME ASIDE AND SAID "YOU WILL GET THROUGH THIS." SURE ENOUGH, THE PROTOCOLS GOT REBUILT, AND THE ARPANET GOT BUILT AND LOTS OF THINGS HAVE HAPPENED SINCE THEN.

WE CAN MAKE THIS WORK, AND WE CAN MAKE THIS WORK WELL ENOUGH. I WAS VERY, VERY PLEASED TO SEE THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS THAT WERE BEING DISCUSSED BEFORE LUNCH. TO MY EYE, THEY WERE MORE SIMILAR THAN DIFFERENT, DIFFERED IN SOME DETAILS. AND ONE OF THE TEST QUESTIONS I ASKED: WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE DIFFERENTLY? AND THERE WERE ANSWERS. IT WASN'T ZERO. AND I THINK THAT'S FINE. I THINK THERE WERE SOME THINGS THAT ONE COULD ARGUE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IF IT WAS DONE DIFFERENTLY, AND THAT'S FINE.

BUT I THINK WE WANT TO DO IT IN A MEASURED AND INCREMENTAL WAY AND WITH THE COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS AN ONGOING PROCESS. WE'VE HAD THE ATRT REVIEWS. WE'VE HAD THE STRUCTURAL REVIEWS. WE'D HAD PLENTY -- WE HAVE ALL OF THE ADVICE THAT COMES IN FROM THE ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND WE HAVE THE POLICIES THAT COME UP FROM THE SOs. THIS IS AN ONGOING PROCESS THAT WILL GO ON TOMORROW AND THE NEXT DAY AND THE NEXT DAY. AND IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL THAT WE GRAB HOLD OF EVERY SORT OF THING AND MAKE IT ALL HAPPEN NOW.

SO I WANTED TO CONVEY THAT. I WANTED TO CONVEY THAT THE BOARD IS DEEPLY INVESTED IN TRYING TO BE HELPFUL, IF WE CAN, STAYING OUT OF THE WAY IF THAT'S THE BEST THING TO DO. BUT WE'RE NOT TO BORROW A PHRASE FROM SOME YEARS AGO, WE ARE NOT POTTED PLANTS. WE ARE NOT JUST SITTING HERE PASSIVELY. WE ARE VERY HEAVILY ENGAGED. AND WE HAVE QUITE HEAVY RESPONSIBILITIES. AND THOSE WILL GET EXPRESSED AS THEY ARE -- AS I'M TRYING TO DO NOW AND THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST, AND THEY WILL CONTINUE AS WE GO.

AND WE ARE HOPING VERY STRONGLY THAT WE ARE NOT PUT INTO A POSITION OF HAVING TO MAKE REALLY TOUGH DECISIONS OR GET INTO A "IT'S THAT OR THAT" SORT OF THING. BUT, IF NECESSARY, ALL OF US ARE SEASONED ADULTS AND WE TAKE OUR RESPONSIBILITIES QUITE HEAVILY AND WE DON'T HAVE CONSEQUENCES EXCEPT TO OUR OWN PERSONAL REPUTATIONS OR CONSCIENCE THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH PERHAPS. WE WILL DO WHAT IS NECESSARY, WHEN IT'S NECESSARY. WE DON'T WANT TO CONVEY THAT AS A THREAT, MORE AS A PLEA, SORT OF "PLEASE DON'T THROW US INTO THAT BRIAR PATCH" IF YOU WILL. ..." (emphasis added) (Note: This transcription may be incomplete/inaccurate--a final reviewed transcript will be posted on CCWG Wiki)

See also on Domain Mondo:




DISCLAIMER
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Domain Mondo archive