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

[Paul Rosenzweig]

Again no.  It has been in scope for at least a year and through two reports. Limits on ICANN mission creep are at the very core of accountability.   Saying otherwise doesn't make it so.
--
Paul
Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 22 November 2015, 05:22PM -05:00 from Christopher Wilkinson < lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> :

>Greg, Paul:
>
>Your coded exchanges are incomprehensible to most of us. What are you trying to achieve?
>
>As already noted, I think we have collectively demonstrated that this topic is out of scope for CCWG.
>
>CW
>
>
>On 22 Nov 2015, at 23:17, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com > wrote:
>>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
>>>>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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/20151123/3465a006/attachment.html>