[CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
directors at omadhina.NET
Fri Oct 9 09:04:58 UTC 2015
Jordan,
the point is, NOBODY has any right to act upon a ccTLD (even if
ccNSO Member) other than the ccTLD Manager. Would, should, could
are not good enough.
el
On 2015-10-09 10:51, Jordan Carter wrote:
> Important point to think through, thank you for raising it!
>
> We must be clear though: what motivation would there be for the
> entirety of the rest of the community to organise such a veto?
>
> Because these are not casual powers.
>
> Such a situation would surely only emerge if:
>
> A) the bylaws change was very resource intensive, and
>
> B) the ccnso had failed to engage the rest of the community in the logic
> of its case.
>
>
> In the case of both of these together, why should the rest of the
> community not be able to say 'go away and think again'?
>
> And in all other cases, the threshold to do a veto wouldn't be met.
>
>
> The alternative would be to exempt SO PDPs from these rules. But why
> should that be the case if resources were affected?
>
> Jordan
>
> On Friday, 9 October 2015, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake at nic.as
> <mailto:sdeerhake at nic.as>> wrote:
>
> Greetings Paul,____
>
> __ __
>
> With respect to my earlier post, you write:____
>
> __ __
>
> [---START---]____
>
> With regard to a “veto” of a ccPDP (and acknowledging Stephen’s
> recent question): ____
>
> __ __
>
> Let’s assume that the ccNSO initiates a PDP and, after a few years
> of serious work, makes final recommendations.____
>
> This is, appropriately, the exclusive domain of the ccNSO.____
>
> However, when this is presented to the Board, if the PDP outcome
> involves a proposed Bylaw change, it is exposed to potential
> objection by other parts of the community.____
>
> This is not an inconceivable scenario. ____
>
> It doesn’t matter whether the issue and the proposed Bylaw changes
> are clearly focussed towards ccTLDs (as one would expect). I see the
> potential that the current CCWG proposal would allow for
> intervention by other SOs and ACs.____
>
> This undermines both the model we have worked for years to develop
> and the independence of cc’s (getting back to Eberhard’s point).____
>
> [---END--]____
>
> __ __
>
> Thank you Paul for acknowledging that under the current proposal it
> is possible for a ccNSO PDP, adopted by the Board, to be later
> overturned by the Community at large.____
>
> __ __
>
> Can I ask the CCWG members how they might think this is an
> acceptable situation for the ccNSO, and can I also ask, what do the
> CCWG members might have in mind to remedy this? I see a difficult
> road ahead for ccNSO consensus for the CCWG proposal as it currently
> stands.____
>
> __ __
>
> Regards,____
>
> Stephen Deerhake____
[...]
--
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse 4-5, St Annes Walk
<Directors at omadhina.net> Alderney, Guernsey, GY9 3JZ
Omadhina Internet Services Ltd British Channel Islands
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list