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

[Avri Doria]

I am afraid that this discussion is not solved by ignoring the
definition of GPI.  GPI has long been the proverbial elephant of ICANN. 
We need to have a definition that allows the Board to understand that
they do not own nor determine the definition and that is only done by
defining the the process by which GPI is defined and understood.

avri

On 26-Dec-15 22:02, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> Avri,
> That was the point of my original message. The board claims to speak for the global public and to be able to divine its interest; we (CCWG) claim also to speak for the global public and to be able to divine its interest. 
>
> This conflict will NOT be resolved by defining GPI. It is the _application_ of some conception of GPI to any particular issue that will be contentious. So let's accept the fact that we will be debating applications, not definitions. And the applications will be shaped by how the parties are affected. 
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> As long as the Board is not calling on GPI as their reason for countering the
>> community's proposals, I can agree.  But as long as they are in a position to
>> declare that as their reason for anything, we are forced to deal with the issue.
>> The Board does not define the GPI. We all work on understanding it together.
>>
>> avri
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus