Just for the record, he is not an appointed member, only a participant, so he is not entitled to a minority opinion in case there is less than full consensus among the members.

el

-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On 23 Nov 2015, at 00:17, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

Sorry Greg.  We had that consensus earlier.   Your representation of your constituency doesn't change that.  If we reach a new consensus that's great.  If not however your minority dissent doesn't change the historical facts.

Paul

--
Paul
Sent from myMail app for Android

Sunday, 22 November 2015, 05:12PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:




On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 9:02 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:

If we can’t come to agreement on alternative wording then we have to default back to the existing text that was in the 2nd draft report.

​GS: I disagree with this statement.  I think the recent discussions have shown substantial ambiguities and areas of dispute around the meaning, scope, explanation, and interpretation​
 
​of the text in the second draft report.

Furthermore, we have moved beyond the second draft language in our deliberations.  I think that some of the changes to the second draft language have had fairly broad support and there is no reason to throw those advances out.

At the very least, I think we would need an explicit call for consensus to determine the current level of support for the second draft language.

Even if we want to consider reverting back to the second draft language, there's no reason to say that we have to do so.

Greg



-jg

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday 22 November 2015 at 1:55 p.m.
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement)

Hi,

A lot has been said, there has been examples and counter examples as well. Could you share at least one example that has survived being countered and most importantly a mission wording that will adequately address that example.

Thanks

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 22 Nov 2015 00:42, "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

Yes but there have been many such examples already e.g. Melton 5 minutes ago.  We are already in the drafting.  So this seems a bit retrograde mo?

--
Paul
Sent from myMail app for Android

Saturday, 21 November 2015, 05:13PM -06:00 from Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>:

Hello Paul,

>>   I read the concerns about the restriction clause as suggesting that it be deleted (perhaps I am wrong in this)

No- we didn’t say that a restriction clause should be deleted.

We said:

" The Board asks that the CCWG provide some examples of what the
CCWG believes that ICANN should and should not be able to do.
That information can then be provided to counsel to see if text can be
drafted to address the broader concerns."


Regards,
Bruce Tonkin


_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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