In full agreement with Mikes points below. -James On 26/09/2015 18:44, "Chartier, Mike S" <mike.s.chartier@intel.com> wrote:
It might be the case that a non-membership model could be created that was acceptable and achieve consensus. However there is a fundamental difference in CA law between a member and a no-member org, so it's a major decision.
The first draft CCWG proposal, sent for public consultation, proposed to change ICANN to a membership model. The "interim" model emerging out of BA was a potential, or "springing" membership model. The second CCWG proposal developed in Paris, and sent for a second public consultation was a membership model. In both consultations, while there were many questions, there was also general support for a membership model.
This is not to say that the proposal eventually sent to the NTIA has to be a membership model, but there would seem to be a process problem in submitting a proposal to NTIA that was not a membership model, but was not vetted to the same extent that the first two proposals were.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 12:52 PM To: 'James Gannon'; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; 'Dr Eberhard W Lisse' Cc: 'Lisse Eberhard'; 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal
Sometimes you should "just say no."
The community membership model is the core of what the community needs to actually enforce its interests ...
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 12:46 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.net>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal
But it means we would not have a membership model no?, which would be a huge change.
-James
On 26/09/2015 17:43, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All There is community mechanism through standing Panel Pls kindly read the text more carefully Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Sep 2015, at 09:32, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Thank you,
in short that means, there will be no Community Mechanism.
el
On 2015-09-26 09:13 , Jordan Carter wrote: here is the PDF of Kavouss' suggestion.
Jordan [...]
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community