[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on Board removal in the context of GAC advice
egmorris1 at toast.net
Wed Feb 17 13:18:55 UTC 2016
Can I sugges this is an unhelpful line of questioning to start?
You can certainly suggest what you like Nigel. I would find the answer to
my question to be quite helpful. I know many members of staff and I presume
the Board were in Singapore a little over a week ago. Maybe they didn't
have the time top consider the matter which, then, is a problem with our
rushed pace more than anything else. Or maybe they just thought of it. I'm
thinking of many things and if we're going to reopen substantive
discussions at this late date without the need for approval on two calls,
redlines, for changes: I really have some nice alterations to
recommendation ten I'd like to bring up. Should I? I even have suggested
improvements for the GAC carve out compromise. Thought of it yesterday. If
I bring it up on the GNSO Council call tomorrow and I get agreement with my
colleagues is too late to get my alterations approved without the two
call, redline, discussion?
But I feel that inquiring as to motivation or causation is not going to
get anyone anywhere, and is just going to be distracting.
Actually, illuminating is the term I'd prefer. In no way did I question
anyones motivation. I hold Bruce and the Board in high personal esteem. I
merely asked a question in terms of timing. Not sure where you are coming
from with your motivation innuendo.
Would it not be better to take the equivalent effort instead and examine
the benefits and disbenefits of what they have to say?
I have made four posts over the past few days on the substance of this
topic, some of which are quite lengthy. Have you read them? Have I missed
anything substantive you've said on the topic Nigel? I haven't seen
anything, but it is a busy list and I may have missed it. Sorry if I did.
And it it doesn't suit you, throw it out. Alternatively, if you can live
with it, then you've saved time.
I've made my position clear, in posts you apparently haven't read. Not
only will I throw it out if this impossibility doctrine (thou must get
permission via an IRP decision on issues on which it has no power to render
a decision in order to be able to use the lower thresholds) is in the final
proposal, I will vote against recommendation one when it comes up for a
vote on Council and will encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Again, I'm willing to reluctantly accept the Board proposal at this late
date for those issues the IRP has remit to rule on. I'm unwilling to accept
the impossibility doctrine. I try to only approve concepts that can
actually happen in positive form.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community