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

[Dr. Tatiana Tropina]

I agree with Milton and Paul.
What especially strikes me is that among the issues that have been
tackled as something that might be not in GPI are human rights and
transparency. I have difficulties to imagine a grounded justification on
how these requirements contradict GPI. Rather than GPI judgement, this
looks as, quoting Paul, “the judgment of 2/3rd of the Board.” Really, a
textbook example on the need for accountability.
And, yes + 1 to Paul and James: even if nothing  in the board comments
indicates that the proposal won't be submitted without modification, 
the reference to GPI brings the question of processes outlined in the
charter and calls for negotiations. So it's not in the comments, it's in
the charter and in the board's resolution.
Best regards
Tatiana Tropina



On 15/12/15 17:01, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
> Andrew
>
> My answer to you is the same one the Milton gave -- the Board's threat to
> veto is a "my way or the highway" statement that is unfortunate and contrary
> to their promise to the Senate.  In particular, the ground was whether they
> would refuse to submit a proposal that diminished their authority.  Fadi
> said they would submit such a proposal if it came from the community.  The
> Board now says that such a proposal is not in the GPI and it will veto it
> ...
>
> 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: 'Andrew Sullivan' [mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 10:24 AM
> To: 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
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 09:32:29AM -0500, Paul Rosenzweig 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.
> I don't see where in its comments the board said it would fail to transmit
> the CCWG-A's output without modification.  Can you point that out, please?
>
> It seems obvious to me that, if the board transmitted a proposal along with
> the observation that at least 2/3 of the board members do not believe it to
> be in the global public interest, that would be a bad thing.  But I'm not
> yet convinced the distance between the views is unbridgeable, as long as we
> take everyone's efforts to be in good faith rather than assuming they're
> attempts to force some view on others.  We may yet fail, but there's no
> reason to fail early.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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