RE: [soac-mapo] Board chooses to duck responsibility?

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I understand the concerns being expressed because the language is vague
and it definitely leaves a lot in the implementation team's purview, but
I do not personally believe that the recommendations that were made are
inconsistent with the general approaches and procedures currently in
AGv4.  I still maintain some hope that when they are examined carefully,
it will be determined that they can be implemented without significant
changes in direction.  The Rec6 CWG purpose from the beginning was not
to change the intent of Recommendation 6 but rather to improve the
implementation of Rec6 and I believe the recommendations made
accomplished that purpose in a constructive way. 

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:53 AM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: soac-mapo
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Board chooses to duck responsibility?

 

The essence of the Board resolutions is that "we will skip community
input if it takes too long" ?   The Board, in the ICANN organizational
model, isn't in spirit hierarchically above the community. Shouldn't
there be a cross community statement to remind the Board that the
decisions pertaining to Critical Internet Resources are not intended to
be decided on a corporate Board model?

 


Sivasubramanian M





On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
wrote:


I agree Alan, it is a strange statement. If "the existing process" means
the Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAGv4), then DAGv4 is an implementation
document and our Terms of Reference clearly stated that we were supposed
to alter the implementation in ways that responded to the concerns of
ALAC and GAC.


> -----Original Message-----
>
> What "existing process"? There was a proposed one in the last draft
> Applicant Guidebook, but there is nothing currently "in existence".
> And if we will only use parts of the CWG recommendation that are
> consistent with the original proposal, what was the point of the
> exercise?
>
> Alan
>