[CCWG-ACCT] Confusion and my position

Roelof Meijer Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl
Wed Feb 24 11:06:09 UTC 2016

As long as the "hardening" is a theory and we need statistics to indicate it is there, I think we should not worry too much about the problem in practice



From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Date: dinsdag 23 februari 2016 18:27
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.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-ACCT] Confusion and my position

I've just done a "distribution analysis" (not as grand as it sounds) of the 4 polls, and I tend to disagree with Andrew's hardening theory (or at least, I don't agree completely).

I've posted this in the thread where the poll results were announced.  You will see that 10 of the 11 participating structures had members who supported removing clause (2).  That seems like a coming together in this particular instance.

Aside from the poll, I did see some unfortunate hardening of positions and hardening of divisions.  I would like to encourage the members and participants to support the final result of our work whatever it may be.

I would also like to encourage the Members to reconsider submitting Minority Statements.  Unified support will speak volumes as this progresses.  There are parts of this final Proposal I am not happy with.  There are battles that were fought and lost, and consensus-building compromises that make me queasy; I believe other members of my stakeholder structure (IPC) would tend to agree.  If I were so inclined (and if I were a Member or my structure had a Member able to speak for my structure alone) I could stand our ground (or lick our wounds) in a Minority Statement.  Philosophically, that's not my style.  The corollary to "Nothing's agreed until everything's agreed" is "Once everything's agreed, everything's agreed."  We have to decide which battles to pick and which battles to win, and which exchanges of views to categorize as battles in the first place.  In this case, I think the battles we need to win will be best fought with a unified front.


On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 05:28:49AM +1300, Jordan Carter wrote:
> I look forward to us moving on, getting this report out, getting CO
> agreement, and getting on with implementation.

I do too, but I confess I'm a little concerned in reading the poll
results.  To the extent I see a pattern, it is of hardening divisions
between people from different constituencies.  As I've said, I can
support whatever consensus emerges (though like Becky, I think the
arguments for one of these positions are quite clearly stronger than
for the other one); but at the moment, I have no idea what consensus
might emerge.  I really urge people to find a way at least not to
object to some stable outcome.

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
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/20160224/a64cc867/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list