There are 4 or 5 opponents to 2/3 . Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 29 Jan 2016, at 02:09, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Does this participant have a scintilla of evidence for his assertion? Or is this another of those instances where one offers mere opinion as fact? More to the point, since the NTIA explicitly said that ST 18 was required for the IANA transition at least part of the assertion is demonstrably false.
Paul
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android
Thursday, 28 January 2016, 07:51PM -05:00 from "Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams" <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>:
Greg,
This participant has felt that several of the BC's "stress tests" were brought in bad faith, and despite the time spent on the rat hole of the GAC's internal process, no amount of lipstick on this pig (ST18) will make it "a good idea" or "enhance accountability" or fix something now broken in the Bylaws, and it isn't what the NTIA asked us to improve.
In other words, does any member or participant think that this is a good idea, or enhances ICANN's accountability, or corrects a problem/deficiency in the Bylaws, or is needed for the transition? How about any chartering organization or constituent part of a chartering organization?
Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon _______________________________________________ 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