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

Jordan Carter jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Thu Sep 3 13:43:44 UTC 2015


Greg, I think you hit well on the key points. And the fundamental changes
the board proposed must be seen as just that: fundamental.

J

On Thursday, 3 September 2015, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>
>

-- 
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150904/8c98cef4/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list