[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in

Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Sat Sep 12 13:30:29 UTC 2015


With respect Chris, I am deeply serious.  The board’s commitment to the multi-stakeholder model is not.

 

And as for “size” when it reflects depth of analysis, yes … it usually does matter.  Glibness is easy when brevity is the goal.  Thoughtful consideration requires extended analysis.  

 

A CCWG process that has gone on for nearly a year and involved 100s of members of the community in meeting taking place across the globe and tens of thousands of man hours does, actually, produce a proposal that has the consensus of the Community.  The Board’s brief “we don’t like it and here is our three page counter proposal” does not deserve our respect.  

 

Paul

 

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

 

 

From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo at auda.org.au] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 8:20 AM
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in

 

Ah…so, clearly, size does matter….to some…..

 

With respect, you can’t be serious.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

 

On 12 Sep 2015, at 21:50 , Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote:

 

Dear Seun

 

With respect, you can’t be serious.  The Board’s alternate proposal is a 3-page memo.  The CCWG’s proposal is an integrated 180 page documents which, even if you limit yourself to the parts directly related to the Single Member model (not including stress tests, or the fundamental bylaws themselves) is roughly 8-10x as long (depending on how you count it) ….

 

Paul

 

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

 

 

From: Seun Ojedeji [ <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:40 PM
To: Jordan Carter < <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Cc: Accountability Cross Community < <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in

 

Hi Jordan,

I don't think there is so much details to develop than what we currently have with the sole member (which by the way also requires a lot of details).

I think the main question we need to ask the CCWG legal is whether the leadership of the SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal standing under the California law. Every other aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and just the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is what lawyers needs to come in on.

Perhaps it's also good to note that what is being proposed by board has been discussed one way or the other in the past but somehow we did not follow-up on the thoughts up.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.

hi all

 

You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which have now been lodged:

 

 <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.html> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.html

 

I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo on the MEM.

 

It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into account as we refine the proposal.

 

An initial observation - there is a lot of detail that would need to be developed if the alternative proposal was to be complete enough to undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan.

 

Happy reading!

 

Cheers

Jordan 



-- 
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> +64-21-442-649 |  <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> jordan at internetnz.net.nz

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity


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

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> 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/20150912/88fef5fe/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list