[CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Nov 12 18:11:58 UTC 2015


It was stated in the ALAC motion and in my announcement of the 
decision. In the August proposal, the only model on the table was the 
Single Member. We did not like that option, but were willing to go 
along with the crowd and not, as a chartering organization, refuse to 
support the CCWG proposal.

After the Friday meeting in Dublin, the CCWG was looking at both the 
Single Member and the Single Designator. Between those two we had a 
very strong preference and that was what we said. We explicitly did 
not categorically reject the membership model, and said we would 
reconsider it if it ever became the sole option again.

Alan

At 12/11/2015 10:38 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
>I would be kind of interested in what key driving issues had changed
>after the Public Comment Period to have the ALAC appointed members have
>their mind changed for them.
>
>If any.
>
>el
>
>
>On 2015-11-12 17:03, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> > I always thought that it was a sign of intelligence to reconsider
> > positions when the situation changes, and particularly when the key
> > issues that drove the decision have substantially changed.
> >
> > I am sure that the good doctor follows this process in his medical
> > practice.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > At 12/11/2015 08:42 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> >> Far be it for me to wade into this logorrhea, but for needing to
> >> point that the Sole Member Model was rejected AFTER the fact by the
> >> very same members appointed by ALAC to the CCWG who had supported it
> >> DURING the process.
> >>
> >> el
>[...]
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community



More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list