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

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Bruce,
You have realized by these counter statement's that your logic relating to
GPI is misleading.
Any inappropriate use of GPI as an excuse to counter balance the CCWG
Accountability transparency is also unacceptable .
On the one hand ,you said there is no clear description of GPI other than
those vague reference in the Article of Incorporation and thus the
potential definition /description of GPI is a matter yet to be examined
and agreed upon in future, and ,on the other hand, you associate any
subject that the Board may not like to GPI..
That does not work at all.
Even if, and only if, the GPI would be described/defined in future, that I
am doubtful about such outcome, still one can not use such item as an
excuse to veto / reject other transparency mechanism.
In view of that above, I am not convinced neither by logic nor substance of
your argument and thus you need to further reflect on the way you wish to
reach a compromise with CCWG.
I am looking forward to hear more relevant and convincing arguments with
solid logics and legal support and common sense in regard with the subject
under consideration
Happy Christmas
Kavouss

2015-12-24 11:11 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> Hi Bruce,
>
>
> > Transparency - is also supported by the Board.     We have not made any
> comments against transparency.
>
> That's not entirely true, but I certainly welcome the willingness of the
> Board to accept the basic premise of greater transparency and to give the
> community Inspection rights - although the details are very important and
> still under consideration,  the openness of the Board to these ideas are a
> break from past attitudes and a very good sign. Thank you.
>
>
> > We are wary of getting tied up in processes where we need 100 staff to
> answer requests for information that are not always material but serve the
> curiosity of the requester.
>
> I share these concerns and am confident that working together in a spirit
> of cooperation and compromise the Board and the community can reach a
> mutually acceptable outcome that addresses this concern while giving the
> community the transparency desired. I note that the Board is today having
> great difficulty meeting the timelines of our current accountability
> mechanisms. Reconsideration requests, for example, are not being handled
> within the period suggested in the Bylaws. It is in no ones interest to
> overburden staff or the Board with unrealistic demands, but at the same
> time one needs to refrain from using this possibility as a Trojan Horse
> preventing us from reaching our shared goal. If all parties act in good
> faith, refrain from threats (which, in my view, has not always happened)
> and work together I'm confident we'll be able to come up with an approach
> that works for everyone.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed Morris
>
>
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151224/fedb89a8/attachment.html>