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

[Paul Rosenzweig]

Sorry Greg.  We had that consensus earlier.   Your representation of your constituency doesn't change that.  If we reach a new consensus that's great.  If not however your minority dissent doesn't change the historical facts.
Paul
--
Paul
Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 22 November 2015, 05:12PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc at gmail.com> :

>
>
>
>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://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/20151123/e6035058/attachment-0001.html>