Thank you Stephen for the explanation in absence of rationale.
So much for the legal recommendation to have at least one member under the Law of California.
Look forward to the simpler compromise model that should be somewhere between (less than) one member and (more than just) enforceable arbitration, if I got the picture right.
Carlos Raúl
It's not just the Board; it was clear to me from Larry's remarks that the
NTIA will not buy into a member model either. And if they aren't buying
into it, it will not happen.
Cheers.
Stephen Deerhake
-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of
Malcolm Hutty
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 12:16 PM
To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Communications Ideas
On 27/09/2015 15:48, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> Unless the community give up the idea of ICANN having members (whether
> one or seven billion) the Board will not agree a common proposal.
I wish I had been able to attend the face-to-face meeting.
Were the Board able to be any more clear as to why they insist on the
community giving up on the idea of having at least a single member?
--
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
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community