[CCWG-ACCT] Slides CCWG Call #39
Chris Disspain
ceo at auda.org.au
Tue Jul 7 12:30:53 UTC 2015
Malcolm appear to.
Cheers,
Chris
> On 7 Jul 2015, at 22:30 , Jordan Carter <jordan at 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 at auda.org.au <mailto:ceo at 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 at linx.net <mailto:malcolm at 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 <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523>
>> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>> London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ <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 at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> InternetNZ
>
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> A better world through a better Internet
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150707/dc963849/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list