[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on Board removal in the context of GAC advice

Edward Morris egmorris1 at toast.net
Wed Feb 17 13:18:55 UTC 2016

 Hi Nigel, 

 Can I sugges this is an unhelpful line of questioning to start?
 You can certainly suggest what you like Nigel. I would find the answer to 
my question to be quite helpful. I know many members of staff and I presume 
the Board were in Singapore a little over a week ago. Maybe they didn't 
have the time top consider the matter which, then, is a problem with our 
rushed pace more than anything else. Or maybe they just thought of it. I'm 
thinking of many things and if we're going to reopen substantive 
discussions at this late date without the need for approval on two calls, 
redlines, for changes: I really have some nice alterations to 
recommendation ten I'd like to bring up. Should I? I even have suggested 
improvements for the GAC carve out compromise. Thought of it yesterday.  If 
I bring it up on the GNSO Council call tomorrow and I get agreement with my 
colleagues  is too late to get my alterations approved without the two 
call, redline, discussion?  

But I feel that inquiring as to motivation or causation is not going to
get anyone anywhere, and is just going to be distracting.

 Actually, illuminating is the term I'd prefer. In no way did I question 
anyones motivation. I hold Bruce and the Board in high personal esteem. I 
merely asked a question in terms of timing. Not sure where you are coming 
from with your motivation innuendo.

Would it not be better to take the equivalent effort instead and examine
the benefits and disbenefits of what they have to say?
 I have made four posts over the past few days on the substance of this 
topic, some of which are quite lengthy. Have you read them? Have I missed 
anything substantive you've said on the topic Nigel? I haven't seen 
anything, but it is a busy list and I may have missed it. Sorry if I did.

And it it doesn't suit you, throw it out. Alternatively, if you can live
with it, then you've saved time.
 I've made my position clear, in posts you apparently haven't read. Not 
only will I throw it out if this impossibility doctrine (thou must get 
permission via an IRP decision on issues on which it has no power to render 
a decision in order to be able to use the lower thresholds) is in the final 
proposal, I will vote against recommendation one when it comes up for a 
vote on Council and will encourage my colleagues to do the same.
 Again, I'm willing to reluctantly accept the Board proposal at this late 
date for those issues the IRP has remit to rule on. I'm unwilling to accept 
the impossibility doctrine. I try to only approve concepts that can 
actually happen in positive form.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160217/c5ae61d2/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list