Leverage? Interesting. I was asked to to it right. Implicitly by being appointed to this CCWG Accountability. And I feel it is as legitimate to look out for the smaller ccTLDs' interests as for business' or governments'. If ICANN's processes are effective or not. I know they have never been and are not. But that does not mean the end justifies the means. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
On 7 Feb 2016, at 08:33, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 07:59:18AM +0200, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Yeah, right, toss all accountability, make it happen.
Not.
Really?
What's your leverage? Suppose that this CCWG does not deliver next week, such that there is a report that can be adopted by the chatering organizations no later that Marrakech.
In that case, what reason does the board have to adopt even one resolution making any of the proposed changes?
If your answer is, "Too much pent up demand," then explain to me how the same demand doesn't lead the rest of the interested world to decide ICANN is too broken to be reformed, and to route around the damage it represents.
We are no longer free to fail and be ignored. Either we deliver, or ICANN's internal processes are revealed to be fruitlessly ineffective. Let's not pretend.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community