<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><div>So nothing changed in LA, and any understandings to the contrary are mistaken?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div style="font-size:75%">avri</div><div style="font-size:75%"><br></div><div style="font-size:75%">Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device</div><br><br><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> </div><div>Date:09/27/2015 10:48 AM (GMT-08:00) </div><div>To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> </div><div>Cc: </div><div>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment </div><div><br></div>Hello Eberhard,<br><br><br>>> can you please "share your understanding" of what you mean below in the form of an executive summary?<br><br>OK - I will try.<br><br>- the Board was getting some feedback that it wasn't aligned with the detailed comments that it submitted - so we wanted to confirm that yes the comments we submitted represent our views on the draft proposal, and our suggestions for improvement.<br><br>- the Board wanted to be clear that we want to work with the CCWG on a common proposal that we can all support. As Keith noted, this means all including the Board will need to compromise, without compromising our joint goals.<br><br>Regards,<br>Bruce Tonkin <br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br><br></body>