[CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation...
Malcolm Hutty
malcolm at linx.net
Wed Sep 2 10:17:25 UTC 2015
On 02/09/2015 03:26, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, I am
> not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition.
>
> The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of
> what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole
> Designator (CMSD).
Trying to revive a Designator Model, or any other model that cannot
provide enforceability[*], is hardly the way to achieve support for
transition. While I understand that you don't think enforceability is
important, you surely must realise by now that it is considered
essential by many.
Even if you succeeded in pushing CCWG into this change, all you would
achieve would be to convince a sizable chunk of the community to
campaign against transition.
Have you communicated to your colleagues in ALAC that you say were
enthused by this supposed alternative that it would just provoke
opposition to transition altogether? Or are they under the impression
that this is something that is likely to win a broad consensus?
Malcolm.
[*] I'm simplifying slightly by mentioning only enforceability: having a
Member also changes how the fiduciary duty works, which is also
crucially important. Becky explained this much more articulately than I can.
--
Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
London Internet Exchange | 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
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list