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

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All
I strongly object to the idea that the issue under discussion be assigned to a small group as this in full contradiction to our charter 
Already approved and is in force .Unless we amend our charter and put it to public comment.
Even If such amendment is approved by community, it would be inappropriate to assign such an important and fundamental issue to a  closed group.
Should CCWG decides yo further pursue the matter( which I think we should do), it should be given to a new working party( WP5)
With two co-chairs one from community empowerment group and one from community mechanism ( Jordan and Beckie) may kindly take that important task
The mandate would be  to consider the CCWG second proposal and the comments received thereto including the Board, s comment with a view to arrive at an acceptable compromise , taking into account the results of discussion at LA
Regards
Kavouss  

Sent from my iPhone

> On 27 Sep 2015, at 03:40, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:
> 
> FYI, as I said during today’s F2F meeting in Los Angeles:
>  
> As we take stock and look ahead to the coming weeks and the road to Dublin, here are my thoughts:
>  
> 1.       We need to continue our review and assessment of all public comments from the second public comment period. We have an established process that must be followed.
> 2.       From the public comments received, including the Board’s, we need to identify the areas of our proposal that require additional work, including further explanation and/or adjustment.
> 3.       For the areas that require adjustment, we need to clearly show how the adjustments evolved from the public comments and discussions. This will be important to inform any follow-on proposal and public comment period. We need to show our work. This was made clear by Larry Strickling’s comments and recent blog post.
> 4.       As part of that process, or in parallel, I think we should consider Ira Magaziner’s proposal to delegate some follow-on “solutioning” work to smaller groups. The public comment response to our second proposal has shown there’s a lot of work to be done, and as Ira and Larry both noted, time is getting short.
> 5.       Everyone must be prepared to compromise to reach consensus, without compromising our well-established goals. This is true for the Board as much as it is for the CCWG and the community.
>  
> Regards,
> Keith
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150928/a6384d84/attachment.html>