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

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hi,

I was going in the pattern of thought of Paul and I think scenarios is what
will help determine what other wordings are required in ICANN mission
statement. I hope you will agree with me that mission statement should not
be written around a future that is not going to happen; Any restrictive
mission statement/wording needs to be well understood in the present
otherwise it's future could create unintended consequences.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 22 Nov 2015 15:02, "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:

> 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> on behalf of
> Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> Date: Sunday 22 November 2015 at 1:55 p.m.
> To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
> Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
> 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> 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>:
>>
>> 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
>> 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/20151122/99ebddf7/attachment.html>