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

[Paul Rosenzweig]

Dear Wolfgang

With respect we do not have a 90% agreement on substance.  To the contrary,
I have read closely the Board's proposal and it is fundamentally at odds
with the CCWG proposal,  Though couched as a modification, it is, in effect
a rejection of the Single Member model of community control.  We are in
agreement on relatively little, I fear since the single most vital question
of all is in dispute -- viz., who controls in the event of disagreement.
The Board says "the Board" and the Community says "the Community."

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key


-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] 
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2015 10:14 AM
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net>
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Chris's summary of current thinking

Hi Greg,

I think you frame the problem in a wrong way. In my eyes it is not "Board on
Top" vs. "Member on Top". We have to find an innovative solution which
balances the various interests in a non-hierarchical way which delivers a
stable, secure and workable governance structure. We have 90 per cent
agreement on substance. I have concerns with elements (unintended side
effects) of the proposed mechanism which I raised in BA, Paris and in
various telcos. But this concerns are based on my full agreement with the
substantial part of the CCWG proposal.

Wolfgang

 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org im Auftrag von Greg
Shatan
Gesendet: Do 03.09.2015 13:48
An: Malcolm Hutty
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Chris's summary of current thinking
 
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
>


_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community