Recommendation 6 and a way forward to include compromise text suggested by the Board
Dear all, After the thorough and fruitful discussions held throughout the various plenary calls, we have finalized Recommendation 6 yesterday. However the Board also proposed a significant compromise which seems to have gathered acceptance from many in our CCWG community involved in the development of Recommendation 6. This seems to be the best approach to achieve a compromise as it seems that it is something most can live with and few really like. As such the co-chairs will recommend this compromise by the Board be accepted by the CCWG as its new consensus position on Recommendation 6 at the next meeting of the CCWG on Tuesday February 9 12:00UTC. To facilitate your consideration of this prior to that meeting we are attaching two documents to this email: The first is a list of Recommendation 6 from the Third Draft, the current language accepted for the supplemental report and the Board compromise language. It also includes a red line of the supplemental language vs the Board compromise. Finally it analyses the changes of the supplemental language vs the Board compromise. The second is a draft of Recommendation 6, as finalized for the supplemental report, with a red line of the changes needed to include the Board compromise. Thanking you in advance for your understanding and spirit of compromise we look forward to any comments you might have on the proposed way forward. Best regards, León, Thomas and Mathieu
Hi, I hve no issue with accepting the Board's compromise. It is not m prefered wording but it is sufficinet. Since we have accepted the Board's changes to the Recommendation, I request that
Maintain the openness of the Internet. N/A
Be fixed to indicate that Recommendation 6 is instrumental to the promise to maintain the openness of the Internet. avri On 04-Feb-16 14:12, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear all,
After the thorough and fruitful discussions held throughout the various plenary calls, we have finalized Recommendation 6 yesterday. However the Board also proposed a significant compromise which seems to have gathered acceptance from many in our CCWG community involved in the development of Recommendation 6.
This seems to be the best approach to achieve a compromise as it seems that it is something most can live with and few really like.
As such the co-chairs will recommend this compromise by the Board be accepted by the CCWG as its new consensus position on Recommendation 6 at the next meeting of the CCWG on Tuesday February 9 12:00UTC.
To facilitate your consideration of this prior to that meeting we are attaching two documents to this email:
* The first is a list of Recommendation 6 from the Third Draft, the current language accepted for the supplemental report and the Board compromise language. It also includes a red line of the supplemental language vs the Board compromise. Finally it analyses the changes of the supplemental language vs the Board compromise. * The second is a draft of Recommendation 6, as finalized for the supplemental report, with a red line of the changes needed to include the Board compromise.
Thanking you in advance for your understanding and spirit of compromise we look forward to any comments you might have on the proposed way forward.
Best regards,
León, Thomas and Mathieu
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Same issue I raised with Bruce. I don't understand the concept of a Cross Community WG chartered by only one AC/SO. Alan At 04/02/2016 05:12 PM, León Felipe Sánchez AmbÃa wrote:
Dear all,
After the thorough and fruitful discussions held throughout the various plenary calls, we have finalized Recommendation 6 yesterday. However the Board also proposed a significant compromise which seems to have gathered acceptance from many in our CCWG community involved in the development of Recommendation 6.
This seems to be the best approach to achieve a compromise as it seems that it is something most can live with and few really like.
As such the co-chairs will recommend this compromise by the Board be accepted by the CCWG as its new consensus position on Recommendation 6 at the next meeting of the CCWG on Tuesday February 9 12:00UTC.
To facilitate your consideration of this prior to that meeting we are attaching two documents to this email:
* The first is a list of Recommendation 6 from the Third Draft, the current language accepted for the supplemental report and the Board compromise language. It also includes a red line of the supplemental language vs the Board compromise. Finally it analyses the changes of the supplemental language vs the Board compromise. * The second is a draft of Recommendation 6, as finalized for the supplemental report, with a red line of the changes needed to include the Board compromise. Thanking you in advance for your understanding and spirit of compromise we look forward to any comments you might have on the proposed way forward.
Best regards,
León, Thomas and Mathieu
Hello Alan,
I don't understand the concept of a Cross Community WG chartered by only one AC/SO.
Good pick up. Might be best described as "two or more", or "at least three" if you want a minimum threshold. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía