Showing posts with label Process. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Process. Show all posts
2016-09-05
Interview With Michael Mauboussin, Author of The Success Equation
Barry Ritholtz's Bloomberg View interview with Michael Mauboussin, head of Global Financial Strategies at Credit Suisse. Mauboussin began his career at Drexel Burnham Lambert in the 1980s and also worked closely with Bill Miller, former chairman of Legg Mason Capital Management. He has been an adjunct at Columbia University’s School of Business since 1993.
Ritholtz notes that "the role of luck and randomness in the investing process has fascinated Mauboussin for years. Some of his earlier work looked at problems of cognitive bias and why investors find it so difficult to change their minds, even when presented with overwhelming evidence of error and failure."
Mauboussin is an author of numerous books on investing, including “The Success Equation: Untangling Skill and Luck in Business, Sports, and Investing”--
Tweets by mjmauboussin
feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo
Follow @DomainMondo
DISCLAIMER
2016-03-13
News Review: ICANN, IANA Transition Plan, NTIA, and U.S. Congress
"... the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) today announces its intent to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community ..."-- NTIA, March 14, 2014
ICANN55 in Marrakech concluded Thursday, March 10th, after the ICANN Board of Directors, a year behind schedule, finally transmitted to NTIA the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan developed in response to the NTIA announcement of March 2014. Read more on Domain Mondo here and here.
Don't believe the hype you may have read or heard from ICANN and NTIA, or their various sycophants. Not only are both touting false narratives in support of the Plan, but both are equally to blame for a flawed transition process which resulted in a plan that fails to address the fundamental, systemic, and structural problems of ICANN. Not only are Work Stream 1 accountability recommendations "untested, unproven, and yet to be implemented" but some fundamental issues were deferred such as ICANN's jurisdiction which will be addressed in work stream 2 (WS2). Will ICANN, a California corporation, be the first U.S. non-profit corporate inversion--not for tax benefits but for political expedience--reincorporating and relocating to Beijing or Geneva or Brussels in the future? No one knows. U.S. jurisdiction is not a fundamental bylaw. Jurisdiction could be changed to any other nation in the future, totalitarian or otherwise. Even the accountability of ICANN's AC/SOs (advisory committees and supporting organizations) to the wider global internet community was deferred to Work Stream 2, meaning these issues will be dealt with sometime in the future. When, if ever, domain name registrants and internet users, who are the core of the global multistakeholder community, might see real accountability from ICANN and its "ICANN community" is unknown, but don't hold your breath!
Remember, NTIA in its announcement of March 14, 2014, failed to even mention, much less require, improvements in ICANN's accountability to either the ICANN community or the global multistakeholder community (and there is a difference, although NTIA acts as if there isn't). It wasn't until ICANN's own "ICANN community" (mostly lobbyists and special interests) vociferously objected, that NTIA agreed and forced ICANN--the California corporation--to add ICANN's accountability to its own "ICANN community" as a necessary component of the IANA transition plan.
Also, not all Chartering organizations actually approved the CCWG Accountability proposal, and of those that did, many have members who expressed concerns or reservations--for example, note one slide shown at an ICANN55 ccNSO session--
 |
| One View of the Strengths & Weaknesses of the CCWG Accountability WS1 Proposal |
Of course, there is always the possibility that Congress--both Democrats and Republicans--realizes it is in the best interests of not only the American people, but also the global internet community, to insist upon the completion and implementation and subsequent evaluation of both Work Stream 1 (WS1) and Work Stream 2 (WS2) accountability mechanisms, and whether they are actually effective and working, and then decide whether ending U.S. oversight is appropriate and in the best interests of both the American people and the global internet community.
See also on Domain Mondo:
- How ICANN and ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé Evade Accountability
- GAC Members [and other CCWG Members] Minority [Dissenting] Statements on ICANN Accountability WS1 Proposal
Most popular articles at DomainMondo.com this past week (# of pageviews Sun-Sat):
- ICANN a Steward? LOL! This Is How ICANN Wastes Registrants' Money
- Forty Tech Companies Have Come to Apple's Encryption Defense (videos)
- News Review: ICANN55, IANA Transition, New gTLDs, dot AFRICA
- ICANN55: IANA Transition Plan, Sexual Harrassment, ICANN New gTLDs
- Could The CIA Have Stopped The 9/11 Hijackers? New Yorker New Media
Have a great week!
-- John Poole, Editor, Domain Mondo
Follow @DomainMondo
DISCLAIMER
2015-11-24
SoftWear Automation: Robots Will Transform the Garment Industry (video)
Can Robots Transform the Garment Industry? Engineers at SoftWear Automation in Atlanta are working on one of the trickiest manufacturing processes to automate: Sewing. (Published on Nov 23, 2015)
SoftWear Automation is disrupting the $100B sewn products industry by replacing sewing labor with cutting edge robots.
SoftWear Automation domain name: softwearautomation.com
2015-04-10
We Need More Bad Ideas - Breakthrough Innovation: Culture not Process
Breakthrough innovation: Culture not Process from London Strategy Unit
londonstrategyunit.com
Follow @DomainMondo
2015-04-07
ICANN, Dysfunction, the Public Interest, and the IANA Transition
Emily Taylor: ICANN: Bridging the Trust Gap (pdf): "Without effective accountability and transparency mechanisms, the opportunities for distortion, even corruption, are manifold. In such an environment, it is not sufficient simply to invoke trust. According to P. Sztompka (1998), a democratic culture of trust can be created through the institutionalization of distrust within the architecture of democracy. Accountability is highlighted as a key mechanism in achieving this." (emphasis added)Domain Mondo recommends the above cited 16 page report about ICANN and the IANA Transition. This report, published by the Centre for International Governance Innovation and Chatham House, is more insightful than anything which has come out of the NTIA-ICANN scheme to transition the IANA functions
Any policy process needs to find ways of balancing the conflicting, legitimate interests of different stakeholder groups. In the ICANN context... a bottom-up process requires the board (despite having ultimate authority on behalf of the corporation) to assume a passive role in policy making.
If the community delivers an outcome that threatens the public interest, the board cannot be relied upon to step in and undo the community’s work... ad hoc workarounds highlight a problem with the
bottom-up process: what happens if a policy is crazy or bad? Who looks after the public interest?
ICANN bylaws... The public interest is hardly mentioned
Key stakeholder groups (users and governments) are not part of the core policy-making framework, ICANN’s GNSO.... At ICANN, with the exception of the At-Large Advisory Council, there is almost no participation by advisory committees or other supporting organizations in providing comments within the formal GNSO PDP...
With no membership, ICANN’s directors represent the end of the line in terms of accountability.
Introducing a membership into ICANN’s corporate structure would not be a straightforward task. How would balance be ensured, to prevent capture by special interests?
In a public interest company, there is even more cause for concern, particularly as ICANN also has a contractual compliance function over those [registry/registrar] companies. There are at least theoretical conflicts in the dual roles of supplier and regulator.
See also: The REAL Domain Hogs: ICANN Officers, Staff, Lavish Pay, Benefits, Accountability Risks Institutionalized
Follow @DomainMondo
2015-01-07
Is ICANN Sabotaging the Accountability and IANA Transition Processes?
 |
| Hard to find: CWG / IANA transition info is on "Dashboard" under "GNSO" tab (yellow circle) but "Dashboard" is called "Community Wiki" on ICANN homepage (see top) and "Dashboard" link is a dead page |
"... This [CWG] breakneck quest is being undertaken to meet a target submission deadline of January 15th for delivering a final proposal to the ICG. In one striking development, ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker has weighed in with multiple e-mails questioning the survey's statistical validity and the core elements of the proposal it is seeking to refine, resulting in turn in some CWG members questioning whether such intervention constitutes an attempt at undue influence.... Good people and intentions are being undermined by a badly flawed process. ICANN's Board wants to see the IANA transition take place by September 2015 and to avoid any extension of the current contract's term by the NTIA, and it is actively communicating to (and some would say seeking to unduly influence) the CWG to revise its current plan and steer it in the direction of the "internal solution" that awards it the IANA functions permanently without any counterparty or contract rebid potential..." (emphasis added) source: Haste Makes Waste: Comments on ICANN CWG IANA Transition Proposal Indicate Serious Process Problems by Philip S. Corwin
Quick, can anybody explain the difference between the CWG and CCWG, and what do either have to do with ICANN accountability or the IANA stewardship transition processes?
Don't go looking on icann.org for a clear, current, directory to all of the on-going processes at ICANN about "accountability" (at least 3 different processes are ongoing simultaneously on "accountability") or the "IANA stewardship transition"--if you go to the "calendar" it looks completely empty and yet there are on-going meetings and activities (if you know where to look). In other words, the ICANN accountability and IANA stewardship transition processes probably look FUBAR to the general public--maybe everybody at ICANN has been too busy working on the new website of another internet organization--the NETmundial Initiative (astroturfed with ICANN money)--to be bothered with updating the ICANN website with current and easily found information concerning the future governance of the Internet DNS. Anyway, here's a rough directory of sorts to ICANN accountability and IANA transition processes--no promises as to accuracy or completeness--but hopefully it will lead you in the right direction:
ICANN Dashboard--this is where a "lot of stuff" at ICANN is "buried"--no "quicklink" from the ICANN homepage--in fact, the link in the footer at the bottom of ICANN's homepage which says "Dashboard" will lead you to a dead page of something else altogether. However if you find "Community Wiki" on the ICANN homepage, click it and you will go to the page called "Dashboard" (see screenshot above). Then go to the "GNSO tab" to find (if you are lucky) info re: the CWG and its documents, e.g., a survey (pdf) being taken of CWG "members and participants:"
"This survey is based on suggestions from the public comments, as well as additional, related questions. The goal is to get a high level sense of the views of CWG participants (i.e., Members and Participants) regarding these suggestions prior to the intensive work weekend on 10-11 January. To the extent possible, Members should make choices that they believe reflect the views of the group they represent; when that is not possible, they should express their personal opinion. (We assume that Members may not have time to go back to their respective groups in a timely fashion; there will be an opportunity for that later, as [meaning "after"?] we develop the final proposal.)..."It's pretty clear from the above that the CWG is succumbing to "deadline dysfunctionality" imposed by ICANN and the ICG, increasing the chances for a very poor result from the overall IANA stewardship transition process. Ironically, ICANN's intention for a short deadline in order to get the result it preferred, may have in fact backfired into the complex solution proposed in the CWG draft proposal.
If you have any further interest in following the IANA transition or ICANN accountability processes, here are some other links that may be helpful:
Cross-Community Working Group on Internet Governance (CCWG-IG)
CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability - Enhancing ICANN Accountability
IANA Stewardship Transition
ICG handed off "the work" to a) naming, b) protocols and c) numbers
Resources - ICANN
CWG Naming: CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions - CWG on Stewardship Transition - Confluence
see also: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability-2012-02-25-en
Follow @DomainMondo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)