[CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation...

[Tijani BENJEMAA]

Kavouss,

 

What Alan was speaking about is the sole designator model, not the designators model.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Executive Director

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)

Phone:  + 216 41 649 605

Mobile: + 216 98 330 114

Fax:       + 216 70 853 376

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

De : accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] De la part de Kavouss Arasteh
Envoyé : mercredi 2 septembre 2015 11:49
À : Malcolm Hutty; Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert
Cc : CCWG Accountability
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Perhaps a variation...

 

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>:



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
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

 



---
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150903/7032e3c0/attachment.html>