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

[Greg Shatan]

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 9:02 AM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:

>
> 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.
>

​GS: I disagree with this statement.  I think the recent discussions have
shown substantial ambiguities and areas of dispute around the meaning,
scope, explanation, and interpretation​

​of the text in the second draft report.

Furthermore, we have moved beyond the second draft language in our
deliberations.  I think that some of the changes to the second draft
language have had fairly broad support and there is no reason to throw
those advances out.

At the very least, I think we would need an explicit call for consensus to
determine the current level of support for the second draft language.

Even if we want to *consider* reverting back to the second draft language,
there's no reason to say that we *have to* do so.

Greg



> -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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/dc256c51/attachment.html>