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

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, Chuck.  We're just trying to find a palliative for that which has the
possibility of becoming a festering sore on ICANN.

It would be an enlightened Board that would rise to fully appreciate this.

Carlton



==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================


On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  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
> >
>
>
>