<div dir="ltr"><div>How about:<br><br><span class="im">All other consensus items could be in WS2,
provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate <b>to</b> force implementation
of WS2 items <b>in the event of</b> resistance from ICANN management and Board.</span><br><br></div>Greg Shatan<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:10 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><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello All,<br>
<span class=""><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>
</span>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>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>