<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">Hello Malcolm,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I’m afraid I disagree with your interpretation. An intransigent position that does not countenance the possibility of movement away from or towards various solutions is a guarantee of failure when it comes to reaching consensus.<br class=""><div class="">
<style type="text/css" class="">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #9443fb}
p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #9443fb; min-height: 16.0px}
</style>
<p class="p1"><br class=""></p>
<p class="p1"><br class=""></p>
<p class="p2">Cheers,</p>
<p class="p3"><br class=""></p>
<p class="p2">Chris</p>
</div>
<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 7 Jul 2015, at 22:16 , Malcolm Hutty <<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net" class="">malcolm@linx.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><br class="">On 07/07/2015 13:02, Kimberly Carlson wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Here are today’s slides in both PowerPoint and PDF formats.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">On slide 2, "Overview", it says<br class=""><br class="">"The two new models seek to address concerns expressed by members of the<br class="">multi-stakeholder community on the Community Empowerment Mechanism<br class="">described in Section 5 of CCWG’s Accountability Initial Draft Proposal<br class="">for Public Comment (4 May 2015) (“Initial Proposal”)"<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">I'm afraid that this suggests that once again the lawyers have been<br class="">asked to examine the wrong question.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">The issue we must consider is not merely which of these two models will<br class="">best deliver on Section 5 of the CCWG's proposal, the community powers,<br class="">but which will best deliver *all* of it.<br class=""><br class="">Section 3 ("Principles") and Section 4 ("Appeals Mechanisms") are<br class="">essential elements of the CCWG proposal. So the lawyer's ought to have<br class="">been asked to consider how the two models differ in their effects on<br class="">those two sections too.<br class=""><br class="">As it happens, there is a passing mention of disparate effect: on slide<br class="">16 "Empowered SO/AC Designator Model" under "Problems/Complications" it<br class="">states "SOs and ACs would not have the reserved powers of members to<br class="">reverse board decisions like [...] implementing IRP recommendations."<br class=""><br class="">However this crucial distinction has been given very little visibility<br class="">of emphasis, I think as a result of concentrating only on Section 5, to<br class="">the exclusion of Sections 3 & 4.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">-- <br class=""> Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523<br class=""> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog<br class=""> London Internet Exchange | <a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/" class="">http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a><br class=""><br class=""> London Internet Exchange Ltd<br class=""> 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY<br class=""><br class=""> Company Registered in England No. 3137929<br class=""> Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" class="">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></span></body></html>