[CCWG-ACCT] Chris's summary of current thinking

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Thu Sep 3 11:48:22 UTC 2015


I think the "nutshell" version of many of these suggestions (if they may be
called that) is that the Board will not be told what to do by the Community.

Community "Powers" would be replaced by either the "right to arbitrate"
(and thus attempt to convince a panel to accept the Community's position),
the "right to consult" (and thus attempt to convince the Board to accept
the Community's position) or the "right to reconsideration" (and thus
attempt to convince the Board to accept the Community's position).

Thus, the balance (if it may be called that) of power remains largely
unchanged.  "Board on Top" survives, and "Member on Top" (as membership
organizations are constituted under US nonprofit law) is eliminated.  By
repeatedly casting this as a discussion of "enforceability" this
fundamental dichotomy was obscured (though Jordan among others did point it
out).  In spite of that recasting, "enforceability" (i.e., going to court)
under this model was never successfully demonstrated in spite of repeated
request to do so (and in spite of repeated assertions by CCWG participants
that enforceability could not be achieved without a "legal person").

I hope that a more detailed review reveals a more nuanced view, but that is
my first reaction to the events of a few hours ago.

Greg

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:

> I regret that I was unable to make the Board call last night. I hope a
> recording and, ideally, transcript, will be made available soon.
>
> On 02/09/2015 23:47, Jordan Carter wrote:
> > 2.      IRP Enhancements
> >
> > a.      Roll back modification of standard of review that was in place
> > before 2013.
> >
> > b.      Commitment that revised standard of review, standing panel and
> > procedural improvements will be part of next phase of work on IRP
> > enhancements.
>
> > [NOT MY AREA]
>
> I would read this as
>
> "* Reject CCWG proposals for IRP reforms
> * Promise to come back to look at reforms to IRP after transition"
>
> Is that reading correct?
>
> If so, I would be very disappointed. This was identified from the start
> as THE core WS1 issue.
>
> If the Board is saying that the principles as to how the compatibility
> of their actions with the bylaws is adjudicated, to what standard, by
> whom, and whom can complain and thereby initiate such review, to say
> that all that should be left to WS2 is not something I can support.
>
>
> --
>             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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150903/ccfad8b6/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list