<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Alan,</div><div>I wholeheartedly support Jordan</div><div>We can not reconsider what we were about to finalize from our Paris Meeting and start a new round of discussion just 10 days before the expiry of Deadline.</div><div>I do not think that what Alan proposed is simpler as there is bnot clear criteria to examine its simplicity.</div><div>I am not in favor of the continuation of the discussion in this regard.</div><div>As Keith Drazak told in Chat, CMSM is a compromise even if I did not agree to use the term "compromise "as it is the only way that all six?Seven powers could be exercised by the community</div><div>Legal Advisers have comprehensively described the problem of Designator, unless it is accompanied by the UA approach that we have totally abandoned</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-09-02 12:17 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Hutty <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net" target="_blank">malcolm@linx.net</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span><br>
<br>
On 02/09/2015 03:26, Alan Greenberg wrote:<br>
> So, although I am hesitant to suggest we switch gears at this time, I am<br>
> not sure we have a real alternative if we want to effect the transition.<br>
><br>
> The At-Large group was very supportive of considering a variation of<br>
> what we now have, specifically, a Community Mechanism as a Sole<br>
> Designator (CMSD).<br>
<br>
</span>Trying to revive a Designator Model, or any other model that cannot<br>
provide enforceability[*], is hardly the way to achieve support for<br>
transition. While I understand that you don't think enforceability is<br>
important, you surely must realise by now that it is considered<br>
essential by many.<br>
<br>
Even if you succeeded in pushing CCWG into this change, all you would<br>
achieve would be to convince a sizable chunk of the community to<br>
campaign against transition.<br>
<br>
Have you communicated to your colleagues in ALAC that you say were<br>
enthused by this supposed alternative that it would just provoke<br>
opposition to transition altogether? Or are they under the impression<br>
that this is something that is likely to win a broad consensus?<br>
<br>
Malcolm.<br>
<br>
[*] I'm simplifying slightly by mentioning only enforceability: having a<br>
Member also changes how the fiduciary duty works, which is also<br>
crucially important. Becky explained this much more articulately than I can.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Malcolm Hutty | tel: <a href="tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523" value="+442076453523">+44 20 7645 3523</a><br>
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog<br>
London Internet Exchange | <a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a><br>
<br>
London Internet Exchange Ltd<br>
21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY<br>
<br>
Company Registered in England No. 3137929<br>
Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>