Hi Greg, I think you frame the problem in a wrong way. In my eyes it is not "Board on Top" vs. "Member on Top". We have to find an innovative solution which balances the various interests in a non-hierarchical way which delivers a stable, secure and workable governance structure. We have 90 per cent agreement on substance. I have concerns with elements (unintended side effects) of the proposed mechanism which I raised in BA, Paris and in various telcos. But this concerns are based on my full agreement with the substantial part of the CCWG proposal. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Do 03.09.2015 13:48 An: Malcolm Hutty Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Chris's summary of current thinking I think the "nutshell" version of many of these suggestions (if they may be called that) is that the Board will not be told what to do by the Community. Community "Powers" would be replaced by either the "right to arbitrate" (and thus attempt to convince a panel to accept the Community's position), the "right to consult" (and thus attempt to convince the Board to accept the Community's position) or the "right to reconsideration" (and thus attempt to convince the Board to accept the Community's position). Thus, the balance (if it may be called that) of power remains largely unchanged. "Board on Top" survives, and "Member on Top" (as membership organizations are constituted under US nonprofit law) is eliminated. By repeatedly casting this as a discussion of "enforceability" this fundamental dichotomy was obscured (though Jordan among others did point it out). In spite of that recasting, "enforceability" (i.e., going to court) under this model was never successfully demonstrated in spite of repeated request to do so (and in spite of repeated assertions by CCWG participants that enforceability could not be achieved without a "legal person"). I hope that a more detailed review reveals a more nuanced view, but that is my first reaction to the events of a few hours ago. Greg On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
I regret that I was unable to make the Board call last night. I hope a recording and, ideally, transcript, will be made available soon.
On 02/09/2015 23:47, Jordan Carter wrote:
2. IRP Enhancements
a. Roll back modification of standard of review that was in place before 2013.
b. Commitment that revised standard of review, standing panel and procedural improvements will be part of next phase of work on IRP enhancements.
[NOT MY AREA]
I would read this as
"* Reject CCWG proposals for IRP reforms * Promise to come back to look at reforms to IRP after transition"
Is that reading correct?
If so, I would be very disappointed. This was identified from the start as THE core WS1 issue.
If the Board is saying that the principles as to how the compatibility of their actions with the bylaws is adjudicated, to what standard, by whom, and whom can complain and thereby initiate such review, to say that all that should be left to WS2 is not something I can support.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community