<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Super Community Unification Model?</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Malcolm Hutty <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net" target="_blank">malcolm@linx.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><br>
<br>
> On 28 Sep 2015, at 20:06, Kieren McCarthy <<a href="mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com">kieren@kierenmccarthy.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> * Last suggestion: stop calling it the "single member model". Call it something that makes immediate sense to everyone and has a positive feel to it. That way people can understand it. And you give the Board a way to save face.<br>
<br>
</span>Kieran,<br>
<br>
Thank you for your thoughtful professional advice. We would do well to follow it. On the except I quote above, though, do you have a suggested alternative?<br>
<br>
The advantage of the term "Single Member Model" is that it is clearly states i) it is a membership model and ii) there is only one member. That has a certain frank simplicity compared to, say, the "super re-empowered community inclusivity model"; anything else that comes across as a collection of buzzwords is unlikely to be more convincing.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Malcolm.<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>