It was stated in the ALAC motion and in my announcement of the decision. In the August proposal, the only model on the table was the Single Member. We did not like that option, but were willing to go along with the crowd and not, as a chartering organization, refuse to support the CCWG proposal. After the Friday meeting in Dublin, the CCWG was looking at both the Single Member and the Single Designator. Between those two we had a very strong preference and that was what we said. We explicitly did not categorically reject the membership model, and said we would reconsider it if it ever became the sole option again. Alan At 12/11/2015 10:38 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
I would be kind of interested in what key driving issues had changed after the Public Comment Period to have the ALAC appointed members have their mind changed for them.
If any.
el
On 2015-11-12 17:03, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I always thought that it was a sign of intelligence to reconsider positions when the situation changes, and particularly when the key issues that drove the decision have substantially changed.
I am sure that the good doctor follows this process in his medical practice.
Alan
At 12/11/2015 08:42 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Far be it for me to wade into this logorrhea, but for needing to point that the Sole Member Model was rejected AFTER the fact by the very same members appointed by ALAC to the CCWG who had supported it DURING the process.
el [...]
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community