Great points,Kieren, especially No. 5. Thank you. On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier@intel.com
wrote:
It seems to me that the process agreed to, gave deference to the Community. The board should only reject a recommendation in the proposal by a finding of "it is not in the global public interest", and it had to do so with a 2/3rd majority. I'm guessing it was biased that way for a reason.
It may be the case that 11 or more board members will remain staunch in their determination that turning ICANN into a membership organization is not in the global public interest, and that would be fine.
But we've had a fair amount of consensus on changing to a membership through two consultations, so before that will is overturned I think it behooves us to continue the frank and open discussion about the second proposal, without any preconditions of elements off the table.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 5:51 PM To: 'Malcolm Hutty'; 'Nigel Roberts' Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas
Amen
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Hutty [mailto:malcolm@linx.net] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 5:40 PM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas
On 28 Sep 2015, at 20:30, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
the Board are still against it and therefore it won't happen.
I don't accept such defeatism. We need to continue to work to improve our proposal to make it the best it can be: taking into account Board input, but not merely deferring to their preference. And then we must report. As Kieren puts it
"Tell that to Congress and then let ICANN Corporate explain why their approach is better."
If we do that we will have discharged our duty, to faithfully propose the means by which oversight of ICANN can be transitioned to the global multistakeholder community. If higher powers then decide that they don't actually like the idea of such transition when they see what it truly looks like, well that's on them. My guess is that they would be much more loath to reject the considered community view than we now suppose.
If, on the other hand, we submit a proposal we know to be flawed out of an untested fear that others demand such flaws, then posterity will condemn us, not them. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- - @arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org> National Law University, New Delhi Ph: +91-9871943272