[CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation...

[Avri Doria]

me too.

While we have some issues to deal with around the edges of the CMSM
model, especially on the mater of its accountability to the wider
community, to go back to the designator model which was always more
complicated and never fit the requirement would be a mistake similar to
throwing up our hands and giving up the effort.

avri


On 02-Sep-15 15:56, Steve DelBianco wrote:
> +1
> Steve DelBianco
>
> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf
> of "James M. Bladel"
> Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 9:10 AM
> To: Matthew Shears, Kavouss Arasteh, Malcolm Hutty, Mathieu Weill,
> León Felipe Sánchez Ambía, Thomas Rickert
> Cc: CCWG Accountability
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation...
>
> Agree with Jordan, Kavouss, Malcolm, and others.  
>
> CMSM was not the ideal, but provides the bare minimum in terms of
> enforceability.  I do not support re-opening the exploration of
> alternative models.
>
> Thanks—
>
> J.
>
>
> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf
> of Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
> Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 6:42
> To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net
> <mailto:malcolm at linx.net>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr
> <mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>, Thomas Rickert
> <thomas at rickert.net <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>
> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation...
>
> 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/
>>     <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.orghttps://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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus