Yes and I agree with such mindset about the past (as I have stated). Unfortunately I don't think that is what has been asked.
This CCWG is not to resolve past/present issues on case by case basis but rather to look at existing mechanism with the mindset of seeing how it can withstand any present/future test/issues. That is why there were a number of stress test scenarios that were raised and solutions provided.
Pointing accusing finger to the board for doing/not-doing xyz in the past will not be as helpful as saying "I suggest abc mechanism to be in place considering that board was able to do xyz in the past" so for me what finally gets included in the CCWG proposal is the paramount thing that determines the future.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’ (George Santanyana)
Therefore the test of any accountability framework is going to be "will it hold ICANN accountable for its apparent past misprisions, if the same (or worse) were to happen in the future?"
On 22/09/15 09:42, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Figured i did not write to the list. IMO it will really be good to know_______________________________________________
whether the point you made further calls for a review of the CCWG
proposal or NOT; Saying the board did certain things in the past under
existing constitution(bylaw) without indicating/confirming whether such
act will continue to happen under the newly proposed constitution (bylaw
amendments) does not seem to be helpful to this discussion.
We can dwell on the past for all I care, but it has little or no effect
on the present nor the future if the past is not put in perspective.
Regards
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com
<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Nigel,
I disagree, and maybe its why i will always be of the opinion that
too much history is clouding many people's judgement/view of things.
Regards
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Nigel Roberts
<nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
Don't be silly. A prime example of accountability failure.
On 22/09/15 08:30, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Bruce Tonkin <
Is this part of the CCWG proposal in some way?
Good question.
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
//alt email:<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>/
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about
your action!
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
//alt email:<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>/
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your
action!
_______________________________________________
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