[CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo

[Chartier, Mike S]

By all means do the study, information is always welcomed.
But I think we are a ways from agreement on the two “ifs” (“If the Board views membership as unacceptable, and [if] the community is willing and able to accept that membership is off the table”).
The Designator model was likewise found wanting by the community.
And I am not convinced that it will be easier to change the minds of the collective community, than 6 minds on the board.


From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 2:21 PM
To: Rosemary E. Fei; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe at sanchez.mx); Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr)
Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com); ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org; ICANN-Adler; Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community at icann.org)
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo

Thanks to Rosemary and Holly for this revised document.

I would very much welcome a comparison of Sole Member, Sole Designator and Board proposal, as described in the paragraph excerpted below:

“As discussed at length leading up to the CCWG’s decision to propose the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model, a Sole Designator Model would provide an alternative that provides fairly robust community powers and enforceability though less than the Sole Member Model.  We are preparing at the request of the CCWG a PowerPoint comparison of the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model, the Sole Designator Model and the Board Proposal.  Our initial assessment is that the Board Proposal -- due to lack of the legal rights that can attach to a member and a designator -- is closest to the current status quo and would deliver the least robust and enforceable community powers of the three models.”

If the Board views membership as unacceptable, and the community is willing and able to accept that membership is off the table, then the Sole Designator model is likely to be the best, most mutually acceptable compromise solution. If we can evaluate Sole Designator against our goals and on the spectrum of choices, it will help to inform our decision-making about next steps, the path forward, and the final proposal.

I look forward to seeing the assessment.

Regards,
Keith



From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosemary E. Fei
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 6:27 PM
To: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>); Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>)
Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>); ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>; ICANN-Adler; Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>)
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] REVISED memo

Dear Co-Chairs:

We have made some clarifying changes to the memo we sent earlier this week; a revised version is attached.

We would appreciate it if staff could post this in place of the prior version.

Thank you.

Rosemary and Holly

Rosemary E. Fei
Adler & Colvin
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220
San Francisco, CA 94104
415/421-7555 (phone)
415/421-0712 (fax)
rfei at adlercolvin.com<mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com>
www.adlercolvin.com<http://www.adlercolvin.com>



_____________________________
Adler & Colvin is a San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and County of San Francisco. Please consider the environment before you print this email.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150928/fc636150/attachment.html>