[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement)

James Gannon james at cyberinvasion.net
Sun Nov 22 14:02:44 UTC 2015


As we have said all along we are planning for the future not relying on the past. We need to make sure that our bylaws are suitable for the next 18 years of ICANN.
Lets not get caught up in looking for examples from the past and focus on lowering the potential risk in the future. The problem is that examples are always going to be subjective based on the proponent and their stance. I think we need to accept that a majority of the community feels that there is a potential risk that needs mitigation, the work we should be doing is working out the best way to implement that mitigation rather than going back and forth on examples.

If we can’t come to agreement on alternative wording then we have to default back to the existing text that was in the 2nd draft report.

-jg

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>
Date: Sunday 22 November 2015 at 1:55 p.m.
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement)


Hi,

A lot has been said, there has been examples and counter examples as well. Could you share at least one example that has survived being countered and most importantly a mission wording that will adequately address that example.

Thanks

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 22 Nov 2015 00:42, "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:

Yes but there have been many such examples already e.g. Melton 5 minutes ago.  We are already in the drafting.  So this seems a bit retrograde mo?

--
Paul
Sent from myMail app for Android

Saturday, 21 November 2015, 05:13PM -06:00 from Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>:

Hello Paul,

>>   I read the concerns about the restriction clause as suggesting that it be deleted (perhaps I am wrong in this)

No- we didn’t say that a restriction clause should be deleted.

We said:

" The Board asks that the CCWG provide some examples of what the
CCWG believes that ICANN should and should not be able to do.
That information can then be provided to counsel to see if text can be
drafted to address the broader concerns."


Regards,
Bruce Tonkin


_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto: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/20151122/cf3dd990/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list