[CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with the Icann Board

[Paul Rosenzweig]

And it should not.  It is clear now that MEM was just a make weight proposal to "triangulate" CCWG so that the Board got the weak Designator model.  No inspection rights and no budget oversight means Board independence.  Very canny by the Board -- almost like MEM was a chimera.  I hope we don't fall for the ploy.
--
Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 18 October 2015, 06:16PM -04:00 from Dr Eberhard W Lisse < el at lisse.na> :

>But can someone confirm that the CCWG Accountability is proposing Designator or Sole Designator?
>
>My understanding is that it does not.
>
>el
>
>-- 
>Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
>
>> On 18 Oct 2015, at 23:05, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au > wrote:
>> 
>> Hello All,
>> 
>> 
>>>> We understand that Bruce Tonkin, in his Liaison capacity, will be in a position to provide an update of the Board's views on Monday during our session.
>> 
>> I can confirm that during this meeting, we informed the co-chairs that I would make a statement on Monday, and that considering the progress made on other areas, the Board was prepared to consider the Designator or Sole Designator models as outlined during the Friday and Saturday CCWG sessions.
>> 
>> See you all tomorrow.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Bruce Tonkin
>> 
>> ICANN Board liaison to the CCWG
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20151019/15c059bb/attachment.html>