[CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals

[Roelof Meijer]

>mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items in the event of resistance from ICANN management and Board

How can we reasonably expect the (ICANN) board to commit to such a proposal (to force implementation of items that they do not agree to)? It would do so blindly, not knowing beforehand what those items would be. No sensible board would ever agree to this. And should not, as we as a working group are not all-knowing. And we know that the chances that the public comments on our proposals will show full consensus are nil. And even if there was a full consensus in the public comments, we know for sure that this does not equal public consensus.


Cheers,

Roelof Meijer

SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O. Box 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM | THE NETHERLANDS
T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05
roelof.meijer at sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer at sidn.nl> | www.sidn.nl<http://www.sidn.nl/>

From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>
Date: dinsdag 6 januari 2015 15:02
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals

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<mailto: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/a763024e/attachment.html>