<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>Even if we agree( all with full consensus) that we iii) re-open substantive work to produce a Fourth Draft Report, putting<br> it on a timeline for public review that won't conclude until<br> late-spring/early-summer, and will *still* risk the Board pulling the<br> same stunt yet again. The displeasure of the numbers and protocols<br> community leaders will be fearsome. I don't know what NTIA would think<br> about being told we're pushing back the deadline by 4-6 months and will<br> miss the Congressional calendar window, but I doubt they'll be happy either.</div><div><br></div><div>Are we sure that at the end of the fourth round, if any , the Board would not come and make another major objection.</div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps we could say we have the work to the nbest of our ability</div><div>i) declare that we've reached the end of the line, for better or for<br> worse, and that the Third Draft Report remains final. This may be the<br> best option, but if it leads to transition failure they will likely be<br> scapegoated by the Board (who would actually deserve the blame).</div><div>I am not prepared to asgree on</div><div><br></div><div>ii) bounce CCWG into accepting the core of the Board's latest demands by<br> ignoring those that voice disagreement. This will utterly discredit the<br> CCWG process, and may lead to many individual stakeholders (but perhaps<br> not Chartering Organisations) directly opposing transition on this<br> basis. This route may be the path of least resistance for the Chairs,<br> but it will cause lasting damage to ICANN and undermine the credibility<br> of multistakeholderism more generally, most particularly amongst<br> multistakholderism's traditional cheerleaders.</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-12-17 6:44 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:el@lisse.na" target="_blank">el@lisse.na</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Since when is this a choice of the Co-CHairs, instead of the whole CCWG?<br>
<br>
Rethorical question of course.<br>
<br>
The Charter is clear on how this works, thre can be several rounds<br>
if the Board disagrees with a 2/3.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
<br>
el<br>
</font></span><span><br>
On 2015-12-17 05:34 , Jordan Carter wrote:<br>
> Hi all,<br>
><br>
> Paul and Malcolm, I think you make sensible points.<br>
><br>
> On Malcolm's options, my view is that i) (Third Draft is it) or a<br>
> variant of iii) (Fourth Draft or at least Supplemental) are<br>
> viable.<br>
><br>
> Option ii) is utterly beyond the realm of what would be reasonable<br>
> or acceptable.<br>
><br>
> I still think it would be helpful for SOs and ACs to offer their<br>
> views on the Recommendations by the requested deadline, even if<br>
> there is a view that more work will later need to be done.<br>
><br>
> After all, it would not be helpful to the CCWG to have to do any<br>
> further work it might decide to do (if it doesn't choose Malcolm's<br>
> Option i)) without views from the SOs and ACs to take into<br>
> account, along with public comments such as that from the Board.<br>
> If we are going to do more work, we should do it with a full set<br>
> of views represented by the various relevant groups.<br>
><br>
> best<br>
> Jordan<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 17 December 2015 at 08:41, Paul Rosenzweig<br>
> <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
</span><span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Malcolm is, of course, completely correct. The Board's last<br>
> minute effort to play the GPI card is an effort to cow the<br>
> Co-Chairs into adopting their views as a way of avoiding<br>
> further delay. As Malcolm says, however, if the CCWG accedes<br>
> to those demands it risks losing the support of many<br>
> individuals and perhaps even some chartering organizations.<br>
><br>
> My own recommendation is that the Chartering Organizations<br>
> withhold their support pending not only close of the public<br>
> comment period but also a determination by the Co-Chairs as to<br>
> how they intend to proceed. If the Co-Chairs choose to modify<br>
> the Third Proposal in response to the Board and if they do so<br>
> without futher engagement and public comment that process<br>
> foul, by itself, would be grounds for the Chartering<br>
> Organizations to reject the proposal -- and I would strongly<br>
> advocate that they do so.<br>
><br>
> Paul<br>
><br>
> Paul Rosenzweig<br>
</span>[...]<br>
<br>
<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" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>