Works for me. From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 11:57 PM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] WS1 vs WS2 recap and proposals How about: All other consensus items could be in WS2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items in the event of resistance from ICANN management and Board. Greg Shatan On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: Hello All,
WS 1 is designated for accountability mechanisms that must be in place of rimly committed to before IANA transition occurs. All other consensus items could be in WS2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate for force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from Icann management and Board.
If possible I would like to see the last phrase read: "in case of resistance from ICANN Management and Board". The current wording seems to assume there is some sort of default resistance. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community