<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div>Dear David,</div><div>Yes you are right in saying for this specific case and in my view for other cases the procedure have Bern reversed to provide the Board the freedom to have the last words and exclude the community as the final decision maker. </div><div>The Community Groups Issue. Or the Community Issue Group and its outcome whether is actually /explicitly binding or binding through court is not very clear.</div><div>Kavouss <br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:31, David Post <<a href="mailto:Postd@erols.com">Postd@erols.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<br>
My apologies if someone has pointed this out already, but there's one
feature of the Board's proposal that is very disturbing. The memo
describing the proposed enforceability regime
[<a href="https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission121.pdf" eudora="autourl">
https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission121.pdf</a>]
outlines the process: <br><br>
"4. to initiate formal MEM proceedings, the agreed number of SOs and
ACs must support the petition. If there is sufficient support amongst the
SOs and ACs then representatives of those supporting SOs and ACs would
become the MEM Issue Group. <br><br>
5. The MEM Issue Group would then submit a Request for Arbitration to the
Standing Panel alleging a violation of at least one Fundamental Bylaw
..."<br><br>
This completely inverts (and subverts) the nature of the process we have
been discussing for months. Instead of a Board that (a) is
empowered to act by stakeholder consensus, and is (b) kept in check by an
IRP process in which its actions can be challenged by anyone materially
affected by the action (or by any of the SOs and ACs, acting on its own),
the new proposal turns that upside down: Under the proposal,
stakeholder consensus is required to BLOCK Board action - the challenge
can go forward only if "the agreed number of SOs and ACs"
support the challenge .<br><br>
That is a very fundamental change in the relationship between the
stakeholders and the Board, and not for the better. It makes it MUCH more
difficult to challenge Board action that is inconsistent with the
Bylaws. <br><br>
And maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get how this new "MEM
Arbitration" scheme doesn't completely destroy the IRP. The
Board says <br><br>
"Establishment of the MEM is not intended to replace existing IRP
procedures. The MEM provides a legally enforceable arbitration decision
on violations of ICANN’s Fundamental Bylaws."<br><br>
It may not have been intended, but surely this task was precisely the one
that the IRP was supposed to take on, and now it's being off-loaded to
some arbitration system. How does that "not replace" the
IRP?<br><br>
David<br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
At 09:49 AM 9/12/2015, Carlos Raul wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Chris, Paul<br><br>
It is my personal view that since ATRT1 the community has been asking for
a better specific "rationale" of Boards decisions. Not
longer or shorter, but BETTER and coming from the Board (or Committee)
itself (consensus or not);and NOT from Staff (outside counsel) si the
community has a better understanding of the decisions (or
proposal).<br><br>
This question to me in this case has been framed in terms of
"enforcibilty" and the risk of capture of the single member as
per the memo. I look forward to my next half day in airports and
flights to look for the RATIONALE of these two very significant
arguments.<br>
<br>
Have a nice weekend you both.<br><br>
Carlos Raúl <br>
On Sep 12, 2015 9:31 AM, "Paul Rosenzweig"
<<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl><br>
<dd>With respect Chris, I am deeply serious. The board’s
commitment to the multi-stakeholder model is not.<br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>And as for “size†when it reflects depth of analysis, yes … it
usually does matter. Glibness is easy when brevity is the
goal. Thoughtful consideration requires extended analysis.Â
<br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>A CCWG process that has gone on for nearly a year and involved 100s
of members of the community in meeting taking place across the globe and
tens of thousands of man hours does, actually, produce a proposal that
has the consensus of the Community. The Board’s brief “we
don’t like it and here is our three page counter proposal†does not
deserve our respect. <br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>Paul<br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>Paul Rosenzweig<br><br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com">
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a> <br><br>
</dd><dd>O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660">+1 (202)
547-0660</a><br><br>
</dd><dd>M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650">+1 (202)
329-9650</a><br><br>
</dd><dd>VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739">+1 (202)
738-1739</a><br><br>
</dd><dd>Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br><br>
</dd><dd>
<a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9">
Link to my PGP Key</a><br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>From: Chris Disspain
[<a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au" eudora="autourl">
mailto:ceo@auda.org.au</a>] <br>
</dd><dd>Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 8:20 AM<br>
</dd><dd>To: Paul Rosenzweig
<<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>><br>
</dd><dd>Cc: Accountability Cross Community
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
</dd><dd>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in<br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>Ah…sso, clearly, size does matter….to some…..<br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>With respect, you can’t be serious.<br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>Cheers,<br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>Chris<br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br>
<dl><br>
<dd>On 12 Sep 2015, at 21:50 , Paul Rosenzweig
<<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>Dear Seun<br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>With respect, you can’t be serious. The Board’s alternate
proposal is a 3-page memo. The CCWG’s proposal is an integrated
180 page documents which, even if you limit yourself to the parts
directly related to the Single Member model (not including stress tests,
or the fundamental bylaws themselves) is roughly 8-10x as long (depending
on how you count it) ….<br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>Paul<br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>Paul Rosenzweig<br><br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com">
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br><br>
</dd><dd>O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660">+1 (202)
547-0660</a><br><br>
</dd><dd>M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650">+1 (202)
329-9650</a><br><br>
</dd><dd>VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739">+1 (202)
738-1739</a><br><br>
</dd><dd>Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br><br>
</dd><dd>
<a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9">
Link to my PGP Key</a><br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>From:Â Seun Ojedeji
[<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>
]Â <br>
</dd><dd>Sent:Â Friday, September 11, 2015 9:40 PM<br>
</dd><dd>To:Â Jordan Carter
<<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>
><br>
</dd><dd>Cc:Â Accountability Cross Community
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
</dd><dd>Subject:Â Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in<br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>Hi Jordan,<br><br>
</dd><dd>I don't think there is so much details to develop than what we
currently have with the sole member (which by the way also requires a lot
of details).<br><br>
</dd><dd>I think the main question we need to ask the CCWG legal is whether
the leadership of the SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal standing
under the California law. Every other aspect of MEM seem to make sense to
me and just the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is what lawyers
needs to come in on.<br><br>
</dd><dd>Perhaps it's also good to note that what is being proposed by board
has been discussed one way or the other in the past but somehow we did
not follow-up on the thoughts up.<br><br>
</dd><dd>Regards<br><br>
</dd><dd>Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
</dd><dd>Kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br><br>
</dd><dd>hi all<br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which
have now been lodged:<br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>
<a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.html">
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.html</a>
<br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo
on the MEM.<br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into
account as we refine the proposal.<br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>An initial observation - there is a lot of detail that would need to
be developed if the alternative proposal was to be complete enough to
undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan.<br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>Happy reading!<br><br>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>Cheers<br><br>
</dd><dd>Jordan <br><br>
<br><br>
</dd><dd>--Â <br>
</dd><dd>Jordan Carter<br>
</dd><dd>Chief Executive, InternetNZ<br><br>
</dd><dd><a href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649">+64-21-442-649</a>Â |Â
<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity<br><br>
<br>
</dd><dd>_______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</dd><dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br><br>
</dd><dd>_______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</dd><dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br><br>
</dd></dl>
</dd><dd>Â <br><br>
</dd><dd>_______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</dd><dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br><br>
</dd></dl>_______________________________________________<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" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</blockquote><br>
*******************************<br>
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
Foundation<br>
blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post" eudora="autourl">
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post<br>
</a>book (Jefferson's Moose)
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0" eudora="autourl">
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a> <br>
music
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0" eudora="autourl">
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic </a> publications etc.
<a href="http://www.davidpost.com /" eudora="autourl">
http://www.davidpost.com
</a> <br>
*******************************
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>