Dear Co-Chairs, I am not sure whether we love and cherish, but I could not care less about whether Malcolm has heard my view before. He is however wrong. greetings, el On 2015-07-29 15:48, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
On 29/07/2015 15:17, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
What does it matter what he envisages?
Well, I would find it useful in helping me to understand whether what he describes is an outrageous limitation on the prerogatives of my SO that fundamentally threatens the bottom-up multistakeholder system we all love and cherish, or a vital check on a potential loophole that would enable the unlimited expansion of ICANN's mission, without which safeguard we risk the death of the diverse, polycentric multistakeholder system we all love and cherish.
But, for the thousand's time, NOBODY other than the Board can "block" ccNSO policy. And, NOBODY, other than an individual ccTLD Manager can speak for that ccTLD. Whether a member of ccNSO or not.
I heard your view before.
If the policy requires a bylaws change however (and I can't imagine why it would, which is why I'm asking) then surely it's at least possible that the rest of the community have an interest in that aspect of it? Depending on the nature of the bylaws change, I suppose. I'll suspect I'll know more clearly what I think when Chris explains what's on his mind.
el
On 2015-07-29 15:12, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
On 29/07/2015 06:24, Chris Disspain wrote:
However, we should also be very clear that the community powers we are considering putting in place will also provide the power to block policy arising from one of the SOs especially where the policy concerned requires there to be a by-law change.
What kind of policy arising from one of the SOs do you envisage that might require a bylaws change?
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/