[CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with the Icann Board

[Matthew Shears]

Completely agree Mike.

On 19/10/2015 01:40, Chartier, Mike S wrote:
> Agreed. I think there's a lot of good faith, and open-minded analysis going on now and if we stay the course, while everyone may not be 100% happy, it will still legitimately be a consensus decision.
>
>
>
> On Oct 18, 2015, at 8:31 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I think we need to look at the models fairly. There is budget oversight in the Designator model, though not as robust in the end as in the Member model. Inspection right was not a prime motivation for moving to the Member model, though we were happy it came with the model; but that is something we can solve on an a la carter basis.
>
> I think we need to be in analysis mode, not advocacy mode, as we work through this.
>
> On Sunday, October 18, 2015, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
>
> 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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Bruce.Tonkin@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://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto: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

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus