Hi, Well not nefarious but perhaps detrimental to finding a complete solution for WS1. Also the discussion of eliminating the WS2 process is of concern. avri On 04-Oct-15 19:45, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus