Hi, I disagree with the notion that the Board presents fact and the rest of the Community presents theory. Many in the other parts of this community have been involved in the ICANN bottom-up multistakeholder process for as long as the Board members. Some even longer with a greater degree of experience. And though our view is not the view from the privileged of Board perspective, it is probably just as validly based on that which is the case. The Board's views are important, and based on their ability to affect the results of the community's work have a special role in our considerations. But please lets not elevate their position to the one truth we must all recognize. avri On 28-Sep-15 11:38, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Ed I always respect your views but this time with a little bit if reluctance. Board, s views contain a great degree of valuable importance as it speaks for implementation of the idea whereas we purely were thinking and discussing of almost theory. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Sep 2015, at 15:26, avri doria <avri@ella.com <mailto:avri@ella.com>> wrote:
Hi,
Or we may have to realize that the Board's fear of the community and the FUD about what we might do, is so great that they will never be able to accept a membership model. The historical and continuing aversion of ICANN's Board and legal advisers to the notion of allowing the community to have any kind of membership may just be part of its nature and something they are incapable of 'blinking' about. It may be the threshold ceiling this experiment in bottom up multistakeholder process can never move beyond. ICANN may, by its very nature and history, never be able to become fully what it aspires to be recognized as.
It then may be up to the community to decide to take whatever crumbs of accountability we can get. One thing I am certain of, one way or another, ICANN will come out of this process changed. It will either continue to lead in developing a true multistakeholder model. Or it may just settle into a slow decline as another organization that never lived up to its promise.
avri
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com <mailto:epilisse@gmail.com>> Date:09/28/2015 8:15 AM (GMT-05:00) To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.NET <mailto:directors@omadhina.NET>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary of current Board sentiment
Ed,
of course we must give special attention to the Board. Stare them in the face until they blink :-)-O
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 28 Sep 2015, at 06:27, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:
Kavouss,
I personally attach a very hight level of support to the Board,s comments which stem from 17 years of valuable experience. While I support and appreciate public comments but we should give special attention to the valuable comments from the Board and should not put those comments in the sane basket of any other comment received from individual .
I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. I give no greater weight to the comments of a member of the Board than I do to a comment from the least privileged amongst us. I give power to the idea, not to the person or the organisation making it.
Ed
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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