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

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All,
If in view of the Board some Recs. are against public interest and on the other hand they referred to the same issue( public interest to reject a given Recs.)
Then I do  not understand how they could refer to something for which( in their view ) there is no established definition and reject a Rec. using that non existent basis
Regards
Kavousd 
Sent from my iPhone

> On 15 Dec 2015, at 16:11, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> 
> Since the Board acknowledges in its comments that there is currently no legal definition of “global public interest” the only reasonable answer to this question is “the judgment of 2/3rd of the Board.”  To which I would respond that the “judgment of the CCWG-A” reflecting a rough consensus of the community is a far better judge of what is in the global public interest than the what 2/3rd of the Board say ….  Indeed, the exercise of the Board’s “big foot” veto on GPI grounds is a textbook example of why greater accountability is needed.
>  
> 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
> <image001.png>
>  
> From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 2:47 AM
> To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: ICANN Board Comments on Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations
>  
> Dear Bruce,
>  
> Thank you again for providing our group with the Board comment.
>  
> As raised in the CCWG call today, we are kindly requesting if the Board could provide our group with a response to the following question.
>  
> What are the legal basis and criteria  by which the Board considers a given Recommendation to be contrary to the Global Public Interest ?
>  
> Clarification would really be useful to help our group, but also the Chartering Organizations, to check our own recommendations.
>  
> Thank you for sharing this email with the Board, and happy to expand on the question if need be.
>  
> Best,
> Thomas, Leon & Mathieu
> Co-chairs
>  
> De : accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] De la part de Bruce Tonkin
> Envoyé : lundi 14 décembre 2015 11:49
> À : Accountability Cross Community
> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: ICANN Board Comments on Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations
>  
> Hello Jordan,
>  
> Thanks for posting to the list.
>  
> The comments are also available in the public comment forum at:
>  
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00011.html
>  
> We had a half day meeting of the full Board on Thursday 10 Dec, and then spent a few hours again with the full Board finalizing the comments yesterday – Sunday 13 Dec.      That was in addition to another half day meeting held on Saturday 5 Dec.   All dates are relative to my time zone J
>  
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151215/e43c565d/attachment.html>