Jordan, the point is, NOBODY has any right to act upon a ccTLD (even if ccNSO Member) other than the ccTLD Manager. Would, should, could are not good enough. el On 2015-10-09 10:51, Jordan Carter wrote:
Important point to think through, thank you for raising it!
We must be clear though: what motivation would there be for the entirety of the rest of the community to organise such a veto?
Because these are not casual powers.
Such a situation would surely only emerge if:
A) the bylaws change was very resource intensive, and
B) the ccnso had failed to engage the rest of the community in the logic of its case.
In the case of both of these together, why should the rest of the community not be able to say 'go away and think again'?
And in all other cases, the threshold to do a veto wouldn't be met.
The alternative would be to exempt SO PDPs from these rules. But why should that be the case if resources were affected?
Jordan
On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>> wrote:
Greetings Paul,____
__ __
With respect to my earlier post, you write:____
__ __
[---START---]____
With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s recent question): ____
__ __
Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years of serious work, makes final recommendations.____
This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO.____
However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential objection by other parts of the community.____
This is not an inconceivable scenario. ____
It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for intervention by other SOs and ACs.____
This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point).____
[---END--]____
__ __
Thank you Paul for acknowledging that under the current proposal it is possible for a ccNSO PDP, adopted by the Board, to be later overturned by the Community at large.____
__ __
Can I ask the CCWG members how they might think this is an acceptable situation for the ccNSO, and can I also ask, what do the CCWG members might have in mind to remedy this? I see a difficult road ahead for ccNSO consensus for the CCWG proposal as it currently stands.____
__ __
Regards,____
Stephen Deerhake____ [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse 4-5, St Annes Walk <Directors@omadhina.net> Alderney, Guernsey, GY9 3JZ Omadhina Internet Services Ltd British Channel Islands