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

[Robin Gross]

It was my understanding in LA that if any substantive parts of the CCWG's proposal are changed, then of course we will put the revised report out for public comment.  It would be hard to imagine anything less being acceptable given the significance of the undertaking.  I do recall agreement around this key process point.

Robin


On Sep 28, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

> Avri
> As long as we publish the third proposal contains a compromise between CMSM and MEM as modified by my preliminary suggestion( after refinement) I have no problem with your proposal. What I have difficulty with is the intolerable and conservative position of some colleagues that do not wish to take onto account the Board,s proposal.
> Regards
> Kavouss  
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 28 Sep 2015, at 03:34, avri doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
>> Date:09/27/2015 7:49 PM (GMT-05:00)
>> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> Cc:
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The Road to Dublin....
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150928/e349ff39/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150928/e349ff39/signature.asc>