<p dir="ltr">FWIW, What the gentle man said is correct and I don't envy being a member either ;-) That said, I am not aware of any restrictions to ccwg participants contributing/raising their view on the list. I however understand members may have voting rights while participants don't.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Overall it will be good to know if there are new contribution requirement for members and participants apart from the ones mentioned above. Until then, I will operate by the understanding above.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 6 Jul 2015 7:05 pm, "Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <<a href="mailto:epilisse@gmail.com">epilisse@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>Dear Co-Chairs,</div><div><br></div><div>I need to point out that neither of the two participants is a member of this CCWG.</div><div><br></div><div>el<br><br>-- <div>Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini</div></div><div><br>On Jul 6, 2015, at 16:28, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I do not share any of those "understandings" or "basic principles". Those may be the opinions of some, but they are by no means the understandings of the CCWG. I would reject these as basic principles.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Seun Ojedeji <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div>Hi,<br><br></div>I have no problem with having a new proposal presented. However it is important that there some adherence to basic principles on proposals that the ccwg would not want to explore. Three areas comes to mind:<br><br></div>- Its my understanding that anything that will turn some/all of the SO/AC to members and thereby exposing them to legal challenge is not acceptable<br></div>- Its my understanding that anything that allows removal of individual board member without the approval of the entire(or larger part) of the community is not acceptable<br></div>- Its my understanding that a solution that allows direct community veto on certain elements like budget, strategic plan et all is not acceptable but an indirect enforcement could be considered (i.e using a power to get another power executed indirectly)<br><div><div><div><div><br></div><div>Some/none of the above may be acceptable by us, but my point is that there should be some focus going forward, especially if the target of ICANN54 is to be meet<br><br></div><div>Regards</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><br></div><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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>