[CCWG-ACCT] Community not sufficiently representative???

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello Jeff,

The current claim is that board could unilaterally create and impose
policy, that aspect of unilaterally creating policies is one of the issues
I believe is being handled in this process and also at the GNSO level.

I don't understand why the word impose(or force) will be inappropriate in a
scenario where the community develops policy and then ICANN board ratifies
for staff implemention. From my experience in policy development within the
numbers community, any ratified policy (unless otherwise stated) is
practically imposed on non-legacy resource holders. Not every resource
holder likes the implemented policy.

That's just normal and it will be violation of board's fiduciary duty to
approve a policy that is determined to affect the security and stability of
DNS/Internet

That said, you are right that board should respond (as applicable) and my
response is solely personal.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 7 Oct 2015 16:30, "Jeff Neuman" <jeff.neuman at valideus.com> wrote:

> Seun,
>
>
>
> With all due respect, you have stated a conclusion without anything to
> support your conclusion that there is a difference.  I could argue that
> with respect to forcing registries and registrars to adopt new policies
> could actually have more of an impact on security and stability of the
> Internet than having the Community given a right to remove a Board of
> Director or final authority over the budget.
>
>
>
> I believe that the Board should respond to my comment on how they can be
> representative for one purpose, but not for the purpose of being
> accountable.  Right now it looks like their argument is a little too
> self-serving.  But I am happy to hear why they disagree.
>
>
>
> But I have not seen a response yet from them.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Jeffrey J. Neuman*
>
> *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
>
> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
>
> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
>
> E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>
> T: +1.703.635.7514
>
> M: +1.202.549.5079
>
> @Jintlaw
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun
> Ojedeji
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 7, 2015 5:25 AM
> *To:* avri <avri at acm.org>
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Community not sufficiently representative???
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I think we should make a distinction; there is difference between having
> control on names related policies and having control over entire ICANN
> accountability which goes beyond the walls of names and also beyond just
> policies.
>
> The accountability mechanism that has been proposed does effectively
> create a power shift to the community, the PDP on the other hand maintains
> power with where it should rightly be (based on ratification requirement).
>
> The way the 2 scenarios is evaluated against representation would
> certainly be different as the risks are not the same. The way the president
> responds to change in states constitution vis the national constitution
> would sure differ.
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On 6 Oct 2015 22:50, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 06-Oct-15 17:41, Jeff Neuman wrote:
> > P.S. For any future Consensus Policy, the Board has opened up a new
> > area of argument if a contracted party does not want to follow
> > it…..namely that the Consensus Policy was not developed through a
> > sufficiently representative policy process.
>
> Indeed.  and I can just imagine how this will play in IRP decisions.
>
> avri
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151007/ef07c489/attachment.html>