<div dir="ltr">I found this observation from Willie Currie very interesting:<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">"<span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt;line-height:107%">A
last point on this issue. What weight of evidence should be attached to an
impact assessment such as Jones Day’s? We are not dealing here with an
environmental impact assessment where there is </span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt;line-height:107%"> </span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt;line-height:107%">hard scientific data to include in the
evidence. We are dealing with governance and accountability, which is in the
realm of the social and the political. That means that we are dealing with
human behaviour in a complex system with multiple variables, well beyond the
purchase of a randomised control trial. Judging by the number of words such as
`would’, `could’ and `likely’ in Jones Day’s analysis, we are primarily in the
space of the speculative."</span></blockquote><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:11pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> <br></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Seun Ojedeji <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Hi,</p>
<p dir="ltr">I found IAB's comment quite interesting. It simply says; "focus on ability to remove board members and every other thing will be added to you as well".</p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00018.html" target="_blank">http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00018.html</a></p>
<p dir="ltr">Seem like what a designator model permits and quite less complicated, perhaps the CCWG may revisit the document from ARIN.</p>
<p dir="ltr">That said, I hope the CCWG is paying attention to the continuous concern of whether there could be consensus on issues if the current model is implemented. This just simply means post-transition voting will be the rule of the day while consensus will have no place (not even rough). I doubt that is what multi-stakeholder mean in practice. Nevertheless, I believe there are folks here who knows more about MS than a "technical" me; hopefully they are testing the model against the multi-stakeholder principles</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On 10 Sep 2015 01:13, "Jordan Carter" <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr">Hi all<div><br>I thought that the comments lodged by auDA and by Willie Currie were both useful reading. </div><div><br></div><div>auDA does provide several constructive criticisms that will certainly be useful to WP1, and no doubt more broadly.</div><div><br></div><div>Willie provides a defence of the multistakeholder model, and of the CCWG's core proposals, and sets out in clear and direct language why the discussion with the Board last week was rather problematic for the majority of those who took part in the call.</div><div><br></div><div>Willie, as a reminder, is one of the Expert Advisors appointed to assist the CCWG with its work.</div><div><br clear="all"><div><br></div><div>Worth reading both.</div><div><br></div><div>auDA: <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00009.html" target="_blank">http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00009.html</a></div><div>Currie: <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00016.html" target="_blank">http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00016.html</a></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>cheers,</div><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
</div></div>
<br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>
<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">-<div>@<a href="http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar" target="_blank">arunmsukumar</a></div><div>Senior Fellow, <a href="http://www.ccgdelhi.org" target="_blank">Centre for Communication Governance</a></div><div>National Law University, New Delhi</div><div>Ph: +91-9871943272</div></div></div></div></div>
</div>