[CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation...

Matthew Shears mshears at cdt.org
Wed Sep 2 11:42:51 UTC 2015


I share the same concerns expressed by Jordan, Malcolm and Kavouss.

Matthew

On 9/2/2015 11:49 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Dear Alan,
> I wholeheartedly support Jordan
> We can not reconsider what we were about to finalize from our Paris 
> Meeting and start a new round of discussion just 10 days before the 
> expiry of Deadline.
> I do not think that what Alan proposed is simpler as there is bnot 
> clear criteria to examine its simplicity.
> I am not in favor of the continuation of the discussion in this regard.
> As Keith Drazak told in Chat, CMSM is a compromise even if I did not 
> agree to use the term "compromise "as it is the only way that all 
> six?Seven powers could be exercised by the community
> Legal Advisers have comprehensively described the problem of 
> Designator, unless it is accompanied by the UA approach that we have 
> totally abandoned
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> 2015-09-02 12:17 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net 
> <mailto:malcolm at linx.net>>:
>
>
>
>     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
>     <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523>
>        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
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- 
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150902/17bc9f14/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list