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

[CW Mail]

Good evening:

I support the change in the ALAC position.

1.	I supported the Single Member model as long as the commercial SO operators held less than 50% of voting power.
	When it became clear that the non-commercial ACs, notably the GAC, might not exercise their full weight within the Single Member, then it was dead as far as I was concerned.

2.	I believe that the record will show that other participants have also changed their positions during the course of the CWG and CCWG debates. 
 	Fortunately so, otherwise even today's consensus would not have materialised. Others may yet do so.

Regards

CW


On 12 Nov 2015, at 19:11, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community