I would agree with Robin's suggestion. The Board's counter-proposal, if it comes out formally in anything like the form they disclosed to the CCWG will be pernicious and (for me at least) possibly a deal breaker. I think it would well-deserve its own critique and, as James says, it is better to be reacting to a concrete proposal than it is to a 10-bullet point outline (which is all we have so far). Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2015 11:25 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: CCWG comments last call Agree with James. On the comment document, Robin suggested that we develop a separate comment on the board proposal, if and when it surfaces in fully developed form. From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2015 6:19 AM To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] CCWG comments last call I would argue against it, until the board has provided its comments in writing I don't think we should give them any precedence over the others. We know in concept what their position is but we have no idea of any of their actual disagreements or substance of their positions yet. -J On 6 Sep 2015, at 10:46, William Drake <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > wrote: I've added a few comments. General question: should we add some language taking into account the Board's positions outlined on the call the other day? I noted a couple spots where this could be done but am unsure whether people want to go there. Bill On Sep 5, 2015, at 9:58 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > wrote: For the record I still oppose the revised formula on voting rights in the NCSG statement. Though it may end up a moot point, given the Board's refusal to accept the CMSM. avri On 04-Sep-15 18:43, Mueller, Milton L wrote: I have made some revisions. We seem to have rough consensus that we are opposed to the proposed voting allocations and consider them and two other things serious enough to raise doubts about whether the CCWG-Accountability proposal enhances ICANN's accountability. The comments now note that we are not unanimous on this but do have a preponderance of opinion that would constitute rough consensus. We all seem to be in agreement about our discussion of the so-called "freedom to contract" section and the section on advice from public authorities. We also now seem to have a way forward on how to handle the HR commitment, though that has only been floated a few minutes ago so it needs more review. In reviewing these comments, please refrain from the temptation to introduce minor wordsmithing - we really don't have time for it at this point. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JGBXO5oOiN_FxivPFkHjz3Gc2w3AT2PeJznrXPw2 fJ4/edit Dr. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ********************************************************* William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org/> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (direct), [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (lists), www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/> Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q *********************************************************