Agree Jordan From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jordan Carter Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 11:51 PM To: Alan Greenberg, Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation... hi Alan I think there are two questions here: - your views in some more detail about the "significantly easier to set up" nature of designator. To my mind this hasn't been substantiated either way - I haven't got information that suggests whether establishing the UA that is the CMSM/D as a designator or a member is simpler. My instinct is that there is not much difference. Could you share what evidence or insight you have? [I'd add, as an aside, that we have now done much more work on member than designator, and so it would seem that there would be more rough edges in a change to that, than in sticking with the current model, but that of course is for discussion.] - whether the designator approach would meet the requirements the CCWG has set out. I'm on clearer ground here that no designator model provides the enforceability for the community powers that the group has identified as important. That was the answer Fadi was given by several of us when he asked "why membership?". We should not underestimate the importance of that enforceability chain to many in the group, and that is the current compromise. Undoing that may have consequences. If the group was to establish a different model that could achieve consensus, there would inevitably need to be another round of community consultation, and no final proposal before Marrakech. So I think we need to take that into account as well. Look forward to your, and everyone's, thoughts. cheers Jordan On 2 September 2015 at 14:26, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: The At-Large group advising on Accountability and IANA matters met today (as we have been twice weekly for the last while). It is becoming increasingly clearer that the CMSM model still has a LOT of rough edges that need to be finalized prior to putting forward our proposal as the accountability part of the IANA transition, and my recollection is that in Buenos Aires we were told in no uncertain terms that the proposal needed to be complete and fully implementable prior to being accepted by the NTIA and if necessary, Congress. I fear that the current plan will not meet that target. So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, I am not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition. The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole Designator (CMSD). Following the Buenos Aires meeting, and prior to the CMSM model being introduced, many in the CCWG were willing to consider the Empowered Designator model, and this is a variant that uses the simplified CMSx structure but with the lighter-weight designator mechanism which will be significantly easier to set up. It also addresses the concerns of some with moving to a Membership model for ICANN. I am sending this on my own, but with the knowledge that the concept had a lot of support in my community. Alan _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz> A better world through a better Internet