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
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