We have ALWAYS described WS1 as the first step in a longer process of continuous improvement. Nothing nefarious there. Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Alan Greenberg<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: 10/4/2015 7:28 PM To: Jordan Carter<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Cc: Accountability Cross Community<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A path to Dublin and beyond One could interpret such a position in a more nefarious way. Specifically, "We are presenting this proposal to you because we think you will like it. As soon as you accept it and the transition happens, we will change it all to something we didn't think you would have liked." Clearly not a strategy for success. Alan At 04/10/2015 06:01 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:
If I was a decision-maker on this proposal - either the ICANN Board, NTIA or indeed the Congress itself, or even an ICANN SO or AC - I would be very uncomfortable at anything which suggested "we will reevaluate the model after the transition, because we aren't sure this is a durable accountability settlement".
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community