[CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider

[Drazek, Keith]

+1 Thomas.

The CCWG did an excellent job analyzing, assessing and addressing the input we received during the first public comment period. It was a lot of work, but it resulted in a much stronger "Version 2" of the CCWG proposal and reference model.  We must now do the same with input received during the second public comment period, including comments from the Board, with the goal of further refining, improving and explaining our recommendation. If we take a measured and deliberate approach to our review, I'm confident our final product will adequately address the community's concerns and also be acceptable to NTIA.

Regards,
Keith

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 11:55 AM
To: Seun Ojedeji
Cc: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider

All,
please let us analyze all comments carefully. All commenters, including the Board, made suggestions in order to improve our recommendations and / or because they want to address a concern.

Let us try to remove as many concerns as possible and benefit as much as we can from all contributions. We are in the luxurious position that we can amalgamate the best of all contributions into our recommendations.

Best,
Thomas


Am 18.09.2015 um 17:48 schrieb Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>:

Hi Nigel,
I don't think we should conclude that way, i think we should maintain an open mind, ask questions and with the appropriate response try re-evaluate the proposal. I for instance like the idea that the MEM has the opportunity to say that "we are happy with board's decision not to follow the recommendation of the IRP" My question however is what happens when the MEM says "we support the IRP's verdict and like the board to implement it"?
Regards

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net<mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>> wrote:
Becky is on the money, as is nearly often most always the case.

Shouldn't we just conclude that MEM is fatally flawed, and (at best) is the result of muddled thinking by its proponents, say so clearly, so we can get on with something productive, like, oh, I don't know, counting sheep?



On 18/09/15 15:57, Burr, Becky wrote:
Furthermore, and more worrisome to me is what the MEM does to the
fundamental concept of an independent judiciary.
_______________________________________________
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



--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/>
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: <http://goog_1872880453/> seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150918/14085612/attachment.html>