Language really does matter. 

So, I agree with most of the edits. But I so too would have liked to see more forceful language use in the ALAC's responses, especially in regard to the Section 3: Principles.  And then, I also have philosophical differences with elements that the ALAC seems to be endorsing.

Regarding Para 154 et. al., we should be bold and write the language we would have liked to see.  I have learned from experience that you must always take care to write your own self explicitly in organisational principles. For Luddites and fellow travelers are forever with us and they tend to dumb down on principles.

Regarding Para 199, again, let's rubbish this exercise in sophistry.  Sweet bleeding Christ, what chutzpah!  The writer here actually says that decisions about the DNS have ALWAYS and must remain 'neutral and judgment free'!.  In what universe? Call it what it is, a squalid lie.

Para 218 again is a deviant operation lurking in plain sight, party to a neo-liberal political economy that enables a standing bit of ICANN tom foolery; ICANN is not a regulator. Its like the cuckoo; lay your eggs in some other poor bird's nest and let 'em feed and groom your big ass chick, they dumb enough not to recognize a bastard. ICANN really wants to remain care-free from what happens in  the market it created, that it imposes obligations for to all of us, sustains in many ways yet wishes to remove itself from the duty of care from the aftermath. This position must be rejected for cause.

As it relates to Section 7, this is where I differ philosophically from the trending ALAC position. However, you might wish to revisit this business of having directors lockboxing certain rights in lieu of appointment.

We still have the law - and the case law - of the State of California to contend with. Now, for a corporate entity domiciled in California and subject to California and U.S laws, libel, slander and defamation are not the same in law as say the UK or even Jamaica. But certainly the question of how much of 'coercive' you can get done before you impinge on a constitutional right is now live. The thing is one cannot sign away a constitutional right, even if you're ignorant.  Plus we are still a long way away from figuring out what is the makeup of 'statutory and fiduciary responsibilities' imposed by California law on directors.  The law there does not suppose they be lapdogs.

Finally, while I generally support Sebastien's Minority Statement, his alternative proposal to removal of only 7 members of the Board during a given year is also not much more desirable.

Quite apart from the prospect of reducing directors to lapdogs, I do not think you can edit out the tenets of natural justice to which each director is born much less to coerce one to give up one's constitutional rights in lieu of a Board seat. There is something malodorous about that concept so I would reject that on principle.

It is far better to have a framework with a third of the Board is subject to natural renewal at a frequency less than the natural appointment duration of each board member - say every 2 years - than invoke a process that might actually take more years to complete.

Best,

-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

Sebastien has sent in the following comments.  If anyone has any support or concerns, please let us know, preferably on the wiki.

Alan

Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:30:27 +0200
Subject: Re: CCWG Statement v07 as requested.
From: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com>
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>


Thanks Alan,
Please find attached the V7-Clean with my comments, questions, proposals
and changes.
If you have any questionS
All the best
Sébastien Bachollet
+33 6 07 66 89 33
Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/
Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com>




Le 04/09/2015 18:54, « Alan Greenberg » <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit
:

>

_______________________________________________
Iana-issues mailing list
Iana-issues@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues

<ALAC-Comment-v07-clean_sbt with further comments by Carlton Sep 5.docx>_______________________________________________
Iana-issues mailing list
Iana-issues@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues