[CCWG-ACCT] The Road to Dublin....

[avri doria]

Hi,

I think slice and dice on the proposal would lose its internal coherence as a proposal. If we change anything substantive, I think the entire thing needs to go out for review.

I know I just agreed to a 'moratorium,' but I don't want to leave ideas sitting long enough for them to be called 'agreed upon.'

avri

Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> </div><div>Date:09/27/2015  7:49 PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org </div><div>Cc:  </div><div>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The Road to Dublin.... </div><div>
</div>Hello Becky,
 
 
>>  I agree but we need to keep in mind that the CCWG cannot speak unilaterally for the community.  To the extent we move off the (substantial) portion of the draft proposal that has consensus support, and to the extent we introduce new solutions in those areas where consensus may not be fully formed, we must go back to the community.  The Board needs to understand and respect that.
 
Thanks – we have also discussed this and agree.
 
One approach I guess could be to put out specific sections that have substantial updates for comment.
 
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150927/4475657b/attachment.html>