I agree but we need to keep in mind that the CCWG cannot speak unilaterally for the community. To the extent we move off the (substantial) portion of the draft proposal that has consensus support, and to the extent we introduce new solutions in those areas where consensus may not be fully formed, we must go back to the community. The Board needs to understand and respect that. From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> Date: Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 1:22 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The Road to Dublin.... Hello Keith, I support your suggestions below. In particular points 4 and 5 below. Regards, Bruce Tonkin FYI, as I said during today’s F2F meeting in Los Angeles: As we take stock and look ahead to the coming weeks and the road to Dublin, here are my thoughts: 1. We need to continue our review and assessment of all public comments from the second public comment period. We have an established process that must be followed. 2. From the public comments received, including the Board’s, we need to identify the areas of our proposal that require additional work, including further explanation and/or adjustment. 3. For the areas that require adjustment, we need to clearly show how the adjustments evolved from the public comments and discussions. This will be important to inform any follow-on proposal and public comment period. We need to show our work. This was made clear by Larry Strickling’s comments and recent blog post. 4. As part of that process, or in parallel, I think we should consider Ira Magaziner’s proposal to delegate some follow-on “solutioning” work to smaller groups. The public comment response to our second proposal has shown there’s a lot of work to be done, and as Ira and Larry both noted, time is getting short. 5. Everyone must be prepared to compromise to reach consensus, without compromising our well-established goals. This is true for the Board as much as it is for the CCWG and the community. Regards, Keith