[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Chris,

my professional opinion is that more than size it matters how you wield it :-)-O

el

-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Sep 12, 2015, at 14:19, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:
> 
> 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> 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
>> 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
>>  
>>  
>> From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com] 
>> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:40 PM
>> To: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <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
>>  
>> 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
>> +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>> 
>> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150912/596cf4e9/attachment.html>