[CCWG-ACCT] Our timetable -- some personal observations

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Since when is this a choice of the Co-CHairs, instead of the whole CCWG?

Rethorical question of course.

The Charter is clear on how this works, thre can be several rounds
if the Board disagrees with a 2/3.



el

On 2015-12-17 05:34 , Jordan Carter wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Paul and Malcolm, I think you make sensible points.
> 
> On Malcolm's options, my view is that i) (Third Draft is it) or a
> variant of iii) (Fourth Draft or at least Supplemental) are
> viable.
> 
> Option ii) is utterly beyond the realm of what would be reasonable
> or acceptable.
> 
> I still think it would be helpful for SOs and ACs to offer their
> views on the Recommendations by the requested deadline, even if
> there is a view that more work will later need to be done.
> 
> After all, it would not be helpful to the CCWG to have to do any
> further work it might decide to do (if it doesn't choose Malcolm's
> Option i)) without views from the SOs and ACs to take into
> account, along with public comments such as that from the Board.
> If we are going to do more work, we should do it with a full set
> of views represented by the various relevant groups.
> 
> best
> Jordan
> 
> 
> On 17 December 2015 at 08:41, Paul Rosenzweig
> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Malcolm is, of course, completely correct.  The Board's last
>     minute effort to play the GPI card is an effort to cow the
>     Co-Chairs into adopting their views as a way of avoiding
>     further delay.  As Malcolm says, however, if the CCWG accedes
>     to those demands it risks losing the support of many
>     individuals and perhaps even some chartering organizations.
> 
>     My own recommendation is that the Chartering Organizations
>     withhold their support pending not only close of the public
>     comment period but also a determination by the Co-Chairs as to
>     how they intend to proceed.  If the Co-Chairs choose to modify
>     the Third Proposal in response to the Board and if they do so
>     without futher engagement and public comment that process
>     foul, by itself, would be grounds for the Chartering
>     Organizations to reject the proposal -- and I would strongly
>     advocate that they do so.
> 
>     Paul
> 
>     Paul Rosenzweig
[...]

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4218 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151217/8a8e18af/smime.p7s>