[CCWG-ACCT] recap and next steps?

Schaefer, Brett Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
Tue Feb 23 21:15:03 UTC 2016

Well said.

Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Salaets, Ken
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 4:11 PM
To: Kavouss Arasteh; Jari Arkko
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] recap and next steps?

I disagree completely, Kavouss, but the issue here is that the difficulty stems largely from the silence of the board (not to be mistaken with the silence of the lambs).  It is respectful to people and process that, when you have a contrary view or perhaps an alternative suggestion, you elaborate on your position so that others may have the benefit and opportunity to assess said argument/alternative and thereby afforded the opportunity to make one’s own judgement.  In this case, the concern being expressed is that we have been deprived of such an opportunity because of the view that the board has not been forthcoming regarding its objections.  Even so, the community has been required to process and respond.

It is certainly the right and, indeed, responsibility of members and participants to evaluate ALL arguments being proffered.  To do otherwise may well be deemed a dereliction of duty.



From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 3:56 PM
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net<mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net>>
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] recap and next steps?

Dear All,
It is not up to us to evaluate the argument of Board as being weak or strong,We may agree or disagree to those statement but not judge them

2016-02-23 18:42 GMT+01:00 Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net<mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net>>:

> I've been pretty cranky on list about the Board proposal, mostly
> because I think the arguments so far advanced for it are really weak.
> But I'm completely in agreement Jordan's note: it is most important to
> pick an answer and ship the report.  In my personal capacity, I'll get
> behind the decision, whatever it is.  Let's choose something and ship.

FWIW, I share Andrew’s thoughts.


Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160223/171f1b9b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list