I agree with much that Kieren has said.  I do take issue with the characterization of the GNSO.  The problem is we have 4 heads (or arguably 7) representing utterly different stakeholder groups.  Recall that SO stands for "Support Organization" not "Stakeholder Organization."  The groupings of stakeholders are stuck under a single GNSO umbrella solely to tussle with one another over gTLD policy.  For purposes beyond that, the GNSO grouping is essentially meaningless.  Trying to stick 4 heads up one collective bunghole does nobody any favors.

Greg

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Unified Community Membership Model

Or UCMM.

But we can call it it a meerkat for all I'm concerned, the Board are still against it and therefore it won't happen.

I predicted this some months ago, on the basis of what happened to the IFWP. I can't say it gives me no pleasure to be proved right. I'm only human, and I feel a bit smug, to be honest. But I so wish I had been wrong.


On 28/09/15 20:23, Avri Doria wrote:


On 28-Sep-15 15:06, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
* Last suggestion: stop calling it the "single member model". Call it
something that makes immediate sense to everyone and has a positive
feel to it. That way people can understand it. And you give the Board
a way to save face.

good idea.

something like?

unified community member model

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community