<span id="mailbox-conversation"><div><br></div>
<div>> The current wording seems to assume </div>
<div>> there is some sort of default resistance</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>So many opportunitIes for a humorous dig here Bruce, but it's probably worth reflecting on the situation while we all consider accountability mechanisms designed for the next 10 years of ICANN.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>It is remarkable that despite all the reviews and the numerous extensive accountability discussions and processes that a main topic on the community's mind is how to get the Board and staff to actually make changes. And, yes, I agree the wording does suggest a default resistance.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>It is also noteworthy that your instinctive reaction is to simply want to change the wording rather than open up a discussion about why there is such a problematic gap between what the community feels and the Board believes it does.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>To many things are done in ICANN by bending the words rather than making the change. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I think coming up with mechanisms that would pull ICANN in a different direction, one where the Board is seen as a reflector or advocate for community opinion rather than a blocking force, would be good and healthy for everyone across the board.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Kieren</div></span><div class="mailbox_signature">
<br>-<br>[sent through phone]</div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><p>On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:10 AM, Bruce Tonkin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>></span> wrote:<br></p><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><p>Hello All,
<br><br><br>>> WS 1 is designated for accountability mechanisms that must be in place of rimly committed to before IANA transition occurs.
<br>All other consensus items could be in WS2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate for force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from Icann management and Board.
<br><br>If possible I would like to see the last phrase read: "in case of resistance from ICANN Management and Board". The current wording seems to assume there is some sort of default resistance.
<br><br>Regards,
<br>Bruce Tonkin
<br>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br></p></blockquote></div><br>