<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Thanks Greg for this useful nutshell version. Helps to have such clear hypothesis to test<div class=""><div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">By repeatedly casting this as a discussion of "enforceability" this fundamental dichotomy was obscured (though Jordan among others did point it out). In spite of that recasting, "enforceability" (i.e., going to court) under this model was never successfully demonstrated in spite of repeated request to do so (and in spite of repeated assertions by CCWG participants that enforceability could not be achieved without a "legal person”).</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Very important consideration to analyse the written proposal. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>I still mis the rationale for changing the Community mechanism to the new MEM, and more worrysome is the fact to delegate the fleshing out of this issue to the inner circle of all outside attorneys </div><div><br class=""></div><div>Carlos Raul</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I hope that a more detailed review reveals a more nuanced view, but that is my first reaction to the events of a few hours ago.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Malcolm Hutty <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net" target="_blank" class="">malcolm@linx.net</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I regret that I was unable to make the Board call last night. I hope a<br class="">
recording and, ideally, transcript, will be made available soon.<br class="">
<span class=""><br class="">
On 02/09/2015 23:47, Jordan Carter wrote:<br class="">
> 2. IRP Enhancements<br class="">
><br class="">
> a. Roll back modification of standard of review that was in place<br class="">
> before 2013.<br class="">
><br class="">
> b. Commitment that revised standard of review, standing panel and<br class="">
> procedural improvements will be part of next phase of work on IRP<br class="">
> enhancements.<br class="">
<br class="">
> [NOT MY AREA]<br class="">
<br class="">
</span>I would read this as<br class="">
<br class="">
"* Reject CCWG proposals for IRP reforms<br class="">
* Promise to come back to look at reforms to IRP after transition"<br class="">
<br class="">
Is that reading correct?<br class="">
<br class="">
If so, I would be very disappointed. This was identified from the start<br class="">
as THE core WS1 issue.<br class="">
<br class="">
If the Board is saying that the principles as to how the compatibility<br class="">
of their actions with the bylaws is adjudicated, to what standard, by<br class="">
whom, and whom can complain and thereby initiate such review, to say<br class="">
that all that should be left to WS2 is not something I can support.<br class="">
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888" class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
--<br class="">
Malcolm Hutty | tel: <a href="tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523" value="+442076453523" class="">+44 20 7645 3523</a><br class="">
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog<br class="">
London Internet Exchange | <a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" 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="">
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><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="">
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br class="">
</div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div>
_______________________________________________<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></body></html>