[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

[Paul Rosenzweig]

Does this participant have a scintilla of evidence for his assertion? Or is this another of those instances where one offers mere opinion as fact?  More to the point, since the NTIA explicitly said that ST 18 was required for the IANA transition at least part of the assertion is demonstrably false.  
Paul
--
Paul Rosenzweig
Sent from myMail app for Android Thursday, 28 January 2016, 07:51PM -05:00 from "Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams" < ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net> :

>Greg,
>
>This participant has felt that several of the BC's "stress tests" were
>brought in bad faith, and despite the time spent on the rat hole of the
>GAC's internal process, no amount of lipstick on this pig (ST18) will
>make it "a good idea" or "enhance accountability" or fix something now
>broken in the Bylaws, and it isn't what the NTIA asked us to improve.
>
>> In other words, does any member or participant think that this
>> is a good idea, or enhances ICANN's accountability, or corrects a
>> problem/deficiency in the Bylaws, or is needed for the transition? How
>> about any chartering organization or constituent part of a chartering
>> organization?
>
>Eric Brunner-Williams
>Eugene, Oregon
>_______________________________________________
>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/20160129/118d3f2e/attachment.html>