[CCWG-ACCT] Update from Brussels

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

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