[CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas

[Arun Sukumar]

Great points,Kieren, especially No. 5. Thank you.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier at intel.com
> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>



-- 
-
@arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar>
Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org>
National Law University, New Delhi
Ph: +91-9871943272
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150929/8757458f/attachment.html>