[CCWG-ACCT] Where do we stand?
Nigel Roberts
nigel at channelisles.net
Mon Oct 12 19:06:45 UTC 2015
(If you think I'm from the Corporate Dark Side, you've clearly never
been to an ICANN meeting -- and the public forum in particular -- at any
time between 1998 and the present day)
On 12/10/15 20:01, Ron Baione wrote:
> Nigel, The question was postualted, I answered it. Everytime the
> question is repostulated, I will reanswer it.
>
> We can all see what the strategy is, re-ask the same question until
> those who aren't "corporate enough" are shouted down. Declare the
> results of consensus that were never asked for. Delay tactics and
> consensus pushing are amateur hour, not going to work on me.
>
> Ron
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: * Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>;
> *To: * Ron Baione <ron.baione at yahoo.com>; <el at lisse.NA>;
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>;
> *Cc: * <directors at omadhina.net>;
> *Subject: * Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Where do we stand?
> *Sent: * Mon, Oct 12, 2015 6:55:01 PM
>
> Ron
>
> This is a Workstream 2 issue.
>
> Please give it a rest.
>
> On 12/10/15 19:47, Ron Baione wrote:
> > "E. What would the community take as evidence in the short term that
> > the Board is acting in good faith? I'm concerned by what appears to be
> > Board bashing on the list, wherein many things that any of us say or do
> > are interpreted negatively and perhaps conspiratorially. I realize that
> > the great majority of people involved int he CCSG process do not have
> > such attitudes, but predictably it only takes a very few individuals to
> > sour and confuse a discussion and lessen its utility."
> >
> > In my opinion, an agreement to the development of an external
> > whistleblower process to protect the post-tranaition process from bad
> > actor government and corporate agents' influence. No reason to waste
> > time on anything before knowing the post-transition process won't be a
> > facade of multistakeholder democracy. The moment the public finds out
> > from "wikileaks" etc, that nefarious activity occurred the internet will
> > become a 100% circus show, and that means conhressional hearings.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From: * Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.NA <javascript:return>>;
> > *To: * <nigel at channelisles.net <javascript:return>>;
> > <accountability-cross-community at icann.org <javascript:return>>;
> > *Cc: * <directors at omadhina.net <javascript:return>>;
> > *Subject: * Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Where do we stand?
> > *Sent: * Mon, Oct 12, 2015 12:28:48 PM
> >
> > Nigel,
> >
> > I don't see it like this.
> >
> > At the moment they want us to blink first.
> >
> > And if we do not, they either are going to pass forward unmodified
> > (with whatever comments they like, of course), or, overturn
> > themselves by resolution (which I would see as the nuclear option at
> > the moment).
> >
> > greetings, el
> >
> > On 2015-10-12 14:09, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> > [...]
> > > But it's all academic, since no matter what the consensus outcome, the
> > > Board reserves the right to reject it anyway.
> > [...]
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
> > el at lisse.NA <javascript:return> <javascript:return> / *
> | Telephone: +264 81
> > 124 6733 (cell)
> > PO Box 8421 \ /
> > Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:return>
> <javascript:return>
>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >
>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list