[CCWG-ACCT] FW: Fwd: FW: ICANN Board Comments on Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations

[Paul Rosenzweig]

You are also ignoring the fact that the Board's threat is completely
contrary to the promise of the CEO to the Senate that the Board would
transmit whatever proposal it got from CCWG-A without modification.  I find
the Board's threat and behavior deeply unfortunate.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key


-----Original Message-----
From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton at gatech.edu] 
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 10:47 PM
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>;
accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: Fwd: FW: ICANN Board Comments on Third
CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations

Andrew:
 
> What I read is that the board might have to ask that question later, 
> not that it has made a determination now.  What did I miss?

You missed the broader political context, as usual. While you are correct
that the board statement does not explicitly say that the recommendations
are not in the public interest, it is for all practical purposes issuing a
threat. The threat is: change this to our liking or we will delay
indefinitely the conclusion of this process by invoking our (unilaterally
imposed) power to not accept the recommendation. 

Specifically, here is what the board said:

" the Board will have to consider whether its concerns were addressed, and
whether the final recommendations (including the specifics within those
recommendations) are in the global public interest."

Given the timeline and the current situation, that is not only a threat, but
a rather cowardly and disruptive one. If the board really does not believe
that the recommendations "meet the global public interest", I want to know,
and I think the entire CCWG and ICANN community has a right to know, how
many board members, and which board members, share this opinion. 

If the board is not willing to provide this information, then their comments
are merely a suggestion, on t he order of any other public comment, and the
CCWG can disregard those suggestions and go with its own opinion if it so
chooses. 

If the board as a whole, or at least 2/3 of it, really does believe that
those recommendations are not acceptable to it (and frankly, I do not
believe that the board is any better than determining what is in the global
public interest than the CCWG, which is larger and more representative than
the board) then they need to tell us now. And we have a right to know who
those board members are.

We really don't have time to play games with hints and allegations.   

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community