Actually in practice, "one of the designator" does not apply because we only have one(sole) designator as per the CCWG proposal. So what you are saying would logical been logical if applied to the designator which in context would be the community.

However I think the final proposal applies the inspection right to each decisional SO/AC which implies there is really no community thing (threshold) for inspection(para35 Annex 1) as it can be exercised by each individual SO/AC but within the scope described in para32

Overall I guess the ship has sailed on this one so we should not dwell further on it.

Cheers!

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 16 Mar 2016 03:27, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:14:41AM -0500, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I agree with the result the Board came to (at least in part), but not the
> reasoning.

[…]

> exercise its powers through the Designator. As a practical matter, this
> can be solved by having any of the SOs or ACs exercise the inspection
> right, so we're covered that way.)

Since the bylaws don't contain the reasoning for why a particular
arrangement happens, but instead just contains the arrangement, what
difference does it make the reasons people have to believe the
conclusion we seem to be reaching? I like the emphasis on the
practical matter: let's find a way to make the outcome right.

It seems to me that making inspection a community power rather than
one of the designator rather improves the value of inspection to the
community, so we should embrace that conclusion (regardess of why
people think it's the right one) and move on.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community