[CCWG-ACCT] Where do we stand?

[Nigel Roberts]

I know who I am. Seriously.


On 12/10/15 20:12, Ron Baione wrote:
> I don't think you are anything, in fact my original response didn't
> quote you and I don't understand why you responded in that hostile way.
> If someone asked a question and another person answers it, who are you
> to tell someone to not do so? Seriously, I want to know who you think
> you are.
>
> 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 7:06:45 PM
>
> (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 <javascript:return>>;
>  > *To: * Ron Baione <ron.baione at yahoo.com <javascript:return>>;
> <el at lisse.NA <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 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>
> <javascript:return>>;
>  >  > *To: * <nigel at channelisles.net <javascript:return>
> <javascript:return>>;
>  >  > <accountability-cross-community at icann.org <javascript:return>
> <javascript:return>>;
>  >  > *Cc: * <directors at omadhina.net <javascript:return>
> <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>
> <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>
>  > <javascript:return>
>  >
>  >  > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>  >  >
>  >
>