Chris, Paul
It is my personal view that since ATRT1 the community has been asking for a better specific "rationale" of Boards decisions. Not longer or shorter, but BETTER and coming from the Board (or Committee) itself (consensus or not);and NOT from Staff (outside counsel) si the community has a better understanding of the decisions (or proposal).
This question to me in this case has been framed in terms of "enforcibilty" and the risk of capture of the single member as per the memo. I look forward to my next half day in airports and flights to look for the RATIONALE of these two very significant arguments.
Have a nice weekend you both.
Carlos Raúl
With respect Chris, I am deeply serious. The board’s commitment to the multi-stakeholder model is not.
And as for “size” when it reflects depth of analysis, yes … it usually does matter. Glibness is easy when brevity is the goal. Thoughtful consideration requires extended analysis.
A CCWG process that has gone on for nearly a year and involved 100s of members of the community in meeting taking place across the globe and tens of thousands of man hours does, actually, produce a proposal that has the consensus of the Community. The Board’s brief “we don’t like it and here is our three page counter proposal” does not deserve our respect.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 8:20 AM
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
Ah…so, clearly, size does matter….to some…..
With respect, you can’t be serious.
Cheers,
Chris
On 12 Sep 2015, at 21:50 , Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Dear Seun
With respect, you can’t be serious. The Board’s alternate proposal is a 3-page memo. The CCWG’s proposal is an integrated 180 page documents which, even if you limit yourself to the parts directly related to the Single Member model (not including stress tests, or the fundamental bylaws themselves) is roughly 8-10x as long (depending on how you count it) ….
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:40 PM
To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
Hi Jordan,
I don't think there is so much details to develop than what we currently have with the sole member (which by the way also requires a lot of details).
I think the main question we need to ask the CCWG legal is whether the leadership of the SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal standing under the California law. Every other aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and just the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is what lawyers needs to come in on.
Perhaps it's also good to note that what is being proposed by board has been discussed one way or the other in the past but somehow we did not follow-up on the thoughts up.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.hi all
You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which have now been lodged:
I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo on the MEM.
It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into account as we refine the proposal.
An initial observation - there is a lot of detail that would need to be developed if the alternative proposal was to be complete enough to undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan.
Happy reading!
Cheers
Jordan
--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community