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

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All 
I agree with Paul view
Moreover, we have had the CCWG and BOARD meeting in LA to avoid another round of pingpong between the Board and CCWG.
They have been actively participated and commented at every and all instances since then
It is unfortunate to receive once again  disappointing comments in the nature that the comments were made.
Regards
Kavousd    

Sent from my iPhone

> On 15 Dec 2015, at 15:32, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community