<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I wholeheartedly agree that we need to engage in continued dialogue with the Board. Indeed, I think most if not all of us hope that a dialogue with the Board will be a key feature of the F2F next week, since we are purposefully "collocating" with the Board in Los Angeles.</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 Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:04 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"><p dir="ltr">Hi,</p>
<p dir="ltr">There is a "modified" saying in my locale that says "... Strength does not open a door as fast as the one who has key to the door"</p>
<p dir="ltr">The CCWG outcome will go through the board and the board will actually play a key role in its implementation. Would it not then be wise and strategic enough to get consensus of the board even if it's "rough" on the CCWG proposal?; both sides IMO are required prerequisite to succeed in the transition process.</p>
<p dir="ltr">So I think this WG should apply strength in explaining its view to the board while also patiently listening to board's opinion as well. Does that sound like bargaining between community and board? Well I call it dialogue and I think it's required.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_quote">On 17 Sep 2015 10:53, "Bruce Tonkin" <<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello Anne,<br>
<br>
>> I would have to disagree with the notion that “Community Consensus” requires consensus with the ICANN Board. It is CCWG consensus that is required. <br>
<br>
Just to clarify my understanding here of the process steps from the CCWG charter.<br>
<br>
- The CCWG produces a Draft Proposal<br>
<br>
- Each of the chartering organizations then decide whether to adopt the recommendations<br>
<br>
- the CCWG will then submit a CCWG-Accountability Board Report which will contain:<br>
<br>
- the proposal as adopted by the CCWG-Accountability<br>
<br>
- the notifications of the decisions from the chartering organizations<br>
<br>
- documentation of the process that was followed<br>
<br>
The level of "Community Consensus" on the final proposal will be judged based on whether all or most of the chartering organizations adopt the recommendations.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bruce Tonkin<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">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>
</blockquote></div>
</div></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><br></div>