I would see it as a little worse than that, even in the event that the board did agree to transmit the CCWG report to NTIA with a statement that it does not believe that elements are in the global public interest(Which the charter indicates they may not do until we have entered into a formal negotiation process with the board), in the event of that outcome, with a 2/3rds majority of the board voting in that manner I don’t see how the recommendations of the CCWG will be able to come into force as the same board members will have to ratify the bylaw changes that they have by a 2.3rd majority stated they do not agree to. -James On 15/12/2015, 3:23 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of 'Andrew Sullivan'" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 09:32:29AM -0500, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
You are also ignoring the fact that the Board's threat is completely contrary to the promise of the CEO to the Senate that the Board would transmit whatever proposal it got from CCWG-A without modification. I find the Board's threat and behavior deeply unfortunate.
I don't see where in its comments the board said it would fail to transmit the CCWG-A's output without modification. Can you point that out, please?
It seems obvious to me that, if the board transmitted a proposal along with the observation that at least 2/3 of the board members do not believe it to be in the global public interest, that would be a bad thing. But I'm not yet convinced the distance between the views is unbridgeable, as long as we take everyone's efforts to be in good faith rather than assuming they're attempts to force some view on others. We may yet fail, but there's no reason to fail early.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community