I disagree Thomas. You asked if the list covered the items upon which there was consensus and which there was not. I responded to that question by suggesting a change of wording to one of the items.

At no time did you ask the Board to expand upon its comments or explain why it had a problem with anything in the CCWG report. 



Cheers,


Chris


On 28 Sep 2015, at 05:55 , Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:

Just to be clear, I asked the board multiple times to share their concerns to a list we produced. That would have been one opportunity to speak to that, Chris.

Thomas

========

PS - Sent from my cell. Please excuse typos and brevity.

Am 27.09.2015 um 09:20 schrieb Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au>:

Hi Malcolm,

The Board was not asked that question.


Cheers,

Chris

On 28 Sep 2015, at 02:16 , Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:



On 27/09/2015 15:48, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Unless the community give up the idea of ICANN having members (whether
one or seven billion) the Board will not agree a common proposal.

I wish I had been able to attend the face-to-face meeting.

Were the Board able to be any more clear as to why they insist on the
community giving up on the idea of having at least a single member?


--
           Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
  Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                London Internet Exchange Ltd
          21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY

        Company Registered in England No. 3137929
      Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA


_______________________________________________
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