Hi,

On May 6, 2014, at 1:47 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> As far as I am concerned they gave us two failing choices. Bad and Badder.
> 
> They should have added Friday back in, at least for this occasion.
> I see it as stubbornness, and find each of the choices offered
> unsatisfactory.
> 
> That would be my personal answer.  If the council were to vote, my
> choice would be to abstain with a statement.
> 
> avri

+1 from me. It seems to me like the two options were designed so that option two will be rejected outright, and folks will have to settle for option 1. I don’t imagine there will be a vote, since we’re past the deadline for submitting motions for the next council meeting.

A third option combining the two sessions on the transition and accountability, and trying to schedule that so that it doesn’t conflict with the public comment forum or HLGM (IMHO) would have been more agreeable. Although ICANN’s accountability is not exclusive to the transition, it is very relevant to that topic. That would have been an easier compromise.

Thanks.

Amr