Hello Malcolm, I’m afraid I disagree with your interpretation. An intransigent position that does not countenance the possibility of movement away from or towards various solutions is a guarantee of failure when it comes to reaching consensus. Cheers, Chris

On 7 Jul 2015, at 22:16 , Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:

On 07/07/2015 13:02, Kimberly Carlson wrote:

...

Here are today’s slides in both PowerPoint and PDF formats.

On slide 2, "Overview", it says

"The two new models seek to address concerns expressed by members of the multi-stakeholder community on the Community Empowerment Mechanism described in Section 5 of CCWG’s Accountability Initial Draft Proposal for Public Comment (4 May 2015) (“Initial Proposal”)"

I'm afraid that this suggests that once again the lawyers have been asked to examine the wrong question.

The issue we must consider is not merely which of these two models will best deliver on Section 5 of the CCWG's proposal, the community powers, but which will best deliver *all* of it.

Section 3 ("Principles") and Section 4 ("Appeals Mechanisms") are essential elements of the CCWG proposal. So the lawyer's ought to have been asked to consider how the two models differ in their effects on those two sections too.

As it happens, there is a passing mention of disparate effect: on slide 16 "Empowered SO/AC Designator Model" under "Problems/Complications" it states "SOs and ACs would not have the reserved powers of members to reverse board decisions like [...] implementing IRP recommendations."

However this crucial distinction has been given very little visibility of emphasis, I think as a result of concentrating only on Section 5, to the exclusion of Sections 3 & 4.

-- 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

hi Chris I don't understand how your comment relates to Malcolm's? cheers Jordan On 8 July 2015 at 00:21, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:

Hello Malcolm,

I’m afraid I disagree with your interpretation. An intransigent position that does not countenance the possibility of movement away from or towards various solutions is a guarantee of failure when it comes to reaching consensus.

Cheers,

Chris

On 7 Jul 2015, at 22:16 , Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:

On 07/07/2015 13:02, Kimberly Carlson wrote:

Here are today’s slides in both PowerPoint and PDF formats.

On slide 2, "Overview", it says

"The two new models seek to address concerns expressed by members of the multi-stakeholder community on the Community Empowerment Mechanism described in Section 5 of CCWG’s Accountability Initial Draft Proposal for Public Comment (4 May 2015) (“Initial Proposal”)"

I'm afraid that this suggests that once again the lawyers have been asked to examine the wrong question.

The issue we must consider is not merely which of these two models will best deliver on Section 5 of the CCWG's proposal, the community powers, but which will best deliver *all* of it.

Section 3 ("Principles") and Section 4 ("Appeals Mechanisms") are essential elements of the CCWG proposal. So the lawyer's ought to have been asked to consider how the two models differ in their effects on those two sections too.

As it happens, there is a passing mention of disparate effect: on slide 16 "Empowered SO/AC Designator Model" under "Problems/Complications" it states "SOs and ACs would not have the reserved powers of members to reverse board decisions like [...] implementing IRP recommendations."

However this crucial distinction has been given very little visibility of emphasis, I think as a result of concentrating only on Section 5, to the exclusion of Sections 3 & 4.

-- 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

-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

That's fine, but there are 100+ people on this list and I am sure I am not the only person who didn't see the link. Malcolm raised a question about the focus of the lawyers' efforts, you responded with a point about intransigence. I agree with both of you, but I don't see how the one causes the other. Happy to remain mystified... J On 8 July 2015 at 00:30, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:

Malcolm appear to.

Cheers,

Chris

On 7 Jul 2015, at 22:30 , Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

hi Chris

I don't understand how your comment relates to Malcolm's?

cheers Jordan

On 8 July 2015 at 00:21, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:

...

Hello Malcolm,

I’m afraid I disagree with your interpretation. An intransigent position that does not countenance the possibility of movement away from or towards various solutions is a guarantee of failure when it comes to reaching consensus.

Cheers,

Chris

On 7 Jul 2015, at 22:16 , Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:

On 07/07/2015 13:02, Kimberly Carlson wrote:

Here are today’s slides in both PowerPoint and PDF formats.

On slide 2, "Overview", it says

"The two new models seek to address concerns expressed by members of the multi-stakeholder community on the Community Empowerment Mechanism described in Section 5 of CCWG’s Accountability Initial Draft Proposal for Public Comment (4 May 2015) (“Initial Proposal”)"

I'm afraid that this suggests that once again the lawyers have been asked to examine the wrong question.

The issue we must consider is not merely which of these two models will best deliver on Section 5 of the CCWG's proposal, the community powers, but which will best deliver *all* of it.

Section 3 ("Principles") and Section 4 ("Appeals Mechanisms") are essential elements of the CCWG proposal. So the lawyer's ought to have been asked to consider how the two models differ in their effects on those two sections too.

As it happens, there is a passing mention of disparate effect: on slide 16 "Empowered SO/AC Designator Model" under "Problems/Complications" it states "SOs and ACs would not have the reserved powers of members to reverse board decisions like [...] implementing IRP recommendations."

However this crucial distinction has been given very little visibility of emphasis, I think as a result of concentrating only on Section 5, to the exclusion of Sections 3 & 4.

-- 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

-- Jordan Carter

Chief Executive *InternetNZ*

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter

*A better world through a better Internet *

-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

On 07/07/2015 13:30, Jordan Carter wrote:

hi Chris

I don't understand how your comment relates to Malcolm's?

I don't think it does directly. I was returning our focus to enforceability of the whole proposal (rather than just community powers). I believe Chris was simply signalling disagreement with the value of that, because he/auDA is opposed to enforceability as an objective. -- 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