[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal

[James Gannon]

In full agreement with Mikes points below.

-James




On 26/09/2015 18:44, "Chartier, Mike S" <mike.s.chartier at intel.com> wrote:

>It might be the case that a non-membership model could be created that was acceptable and achieve consensus. However there is a fundamental difference in CA law between a member and a no-member org, so it's a major decision.
>
>The first draft CCWG proposal, sent for public consultation, proposed to change ICANN to a membership model. 
>The "interim" model emerging out of BA was a potential, or "springing" membership model. 
>The second CCWG proposal developed in Paris, and sent for a second public consultation was a membership model. 
>In both consultations, while there were many questions, there was also general support for a membership model.
>
>This is not to say that the proposal eventually sent to the NTIA has to be a membership model, but there would seem to be a process problem in submitting a proposal to NTIA that was not a membership model, but was not vetted to the same extent that the first two proposals were.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig
>Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 12:52 PM
>To: 'James Gannon'; 'Kavouss Arasteh'; 'Dr Eberhard W Lisse'
>Cc: 'Lisse Eberhard'; 'Accountability Cross Community'
>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal
>
>Sometimes you should "just say no."
>
>The community membership model is the core of what the community needs to actually enforce its interests ...
>
>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: James Gannon [mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net] 
>Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 12:46 PM
>To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>; Dr Eberhard W Lisse
><el at lisse.NA>
>Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors at omadhina.net>; Accountability Cross Community
><accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Kavouss alternative proposal
>
>But it means we would not have a membership model no?, which would be a huge
>change.
>
>-James
>
>
>
>
>
>On 26/09/2015 17:43, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
>behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>on behalf of kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Dear All
>>There is community mechanism through standing Panel Pls  kindly read 
>>the text more carefully Kavousd
>>
>>Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On 26 Sep 2015, at 09:32, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.NA> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> 
>>> in short that means, there will be no Community Mechanism.
>>> 
>>> el
>>> 
>>>> On 2015-09-26 09:13 , Jordan Carter wrote:
>>>> here is the PDF of Kavouss' suggestion.
>>>> 
>>>> Jordan
>>> [...]
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community