Seun, With all due respect, you have stated a conclusion without anything to support your conclusion that there is a difference. I could argue that with respect to forcing registries and registrars to adopt new policies could actually have more of an impact on security and stability of the Internet than having the Community given a right to remove a Board of Director or final authority over the budget. I believe that the Board should respond to my comment on how they can be representative for one purpose, but not for the purpose of being accountable. Right now it looks like their argument is a little too self-serving. But I am happy to hear why they disagree. But I have not seen a response yet from them. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 5:25 AM To: avri <avri@acm.org> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Community not sufficiently representative??? Hi, I think we should make a distinction; there is difference between having control on names related policies and having control over entire ICANN accountability which goes beyond the walls of names and also beyond just policies. The accountability mechanism that has been proposed does effectively create a power shift to the community, the PDP on the other hand maintains power with where it should rightly be (based on ratification requirement). The way the 2 scenarios is evaluated against representation would certainly be different as the risks are not the same. The way the president responds to change in states constitution vis the national constitution would sure differ. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 6 Oct 2015 22:50, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> > wrote: On 06-Oct-15 17:41, Jeff Neuman wrote:
P.S. For any future Consensus Policy, the Board has opened up a new area of argument if a contracted party does not want to follow it…..namely that the Consensus Policy was not developed through a sufficiently representative policy process.
Indeed. and I can just imagine how this will play in IRP decisions. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ 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