[CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas

Chartier, Mike S mike.s.chartier at intel.com
Tue Sep 29 07:46:54 UTC 2015


It seems to me that the process agreed to, gave deference to the Community. The board should only reject a recommendation in the proposal by a finding of "it is not in the global public interest", and it had to do so with a 2/3rd majority. I'm guessing it was biased that way for a reason.

It may be the case that 11 or more board members will remain staunch in their determination that turning ICANN into a membership organization is not in the global public interest, and that would be fine. 

But we've had a fair amount of consensus on changing to a membership through two consultations, so before that will is overturned I think it behooves us to continue the frank and open discussion about the second proposal, without any preconditions of elements off the table.

-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 5:51 PM
To: 'Malcolm Hutty'; 'Nigel Roberts'
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas

Amen

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key


-----Original Message-----
From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm at linx.net] 
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 5:40 PM
To: Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas



> On 28 Sep 2015, at 20:30, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:
> 
> the Board are still against it and therefore it won't happen.

I don't accept such defeatism. We need to continue to work to improve our
proposal to make it the best it can be: taking into account Board input, but
not merely deferring to their preference. And then we must report. As Kieren
puts it 

"Tell that to Congress and then let ICANN Corporate explain why their
approach is better."

If we do that we will have discharged our duty, to faithfully propose the
means by which oversight of ICANN can be transitioned to the global
multistakeholder community. If higher powers then decide that they don't
actually like the idea of such transition when they see what it truly looks
like, well that's on them. My guess is that they would be much more loath to
reject the considered community view than we now suppose. 

If, on the other hand, we submit a proposal we know to be flawed out of an
untested fear that others demand such flaws, then posterity will condemn us,
not them.  
_______________________________________________
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



More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list