[CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals

[Bruce Tonkin]

Works for me.

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 11:57 PM
To: Bruce Tonkin
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals

How about:

All other consensus items could be in WS2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items in the event of resistance from ICANN management and Board.
Greg Shatan

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>> wrote:
Hello All,


>>  WS 1 is designated for accountability mechanisms that must be in place of rimly committed to before IANA transition occurs.
All other consensus items could be in WS2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate for force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from Icann management and Board.

If possible I would like to see the last phrase read:  "in case of resistance from ICANN Management and Board".   The current wording seems to assume there is some sort of default resistance.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150106/4af7fa0e/attachment.html>