With respect, you can’t be serious. The Board’s alternate proposal is a 3-page memo. The CCWG’s proposal is an integrated 180 page documents which, even if you limit yourself to the parts directly related to the Single Member model (not including stress tests, or the fundamental bylaws themselves) is roughly 8-10x as long (depending on how you count it) ….
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Hi Jordan,
I don't think there is so much details to develop than what we currently have with the sole member (which by the way also requires a lot of details).
I think the main question we need to ask the CCWG legal is whether the leadership of the SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal standing under the California law. Every other aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and just the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is what lawyers needs to come in on.
Perhaps it's also good to note that what is being proposed by board has been discussed one way or the other in the past but somehow we did not follow-up on the thoughts up.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which have now been lodged:
I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo on the MEM.
It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into account as we refine the proposal.
An initial observation - there is a lot of detail that would need to be developed if the alternative proposal was to be complete enough to undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan.
--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community