<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>Hello Nigel,</div><div><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><blockquote type="cite"><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">......the perception that ICANN ("the corporation") seems to be positioning itself as in disagreement with the strategic goal of ensuring the corporation becomes (I was going to say 'remains' but that's entirely inaccurate) accountable to the people it was designed to serve.</span></font></blockquote></div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">I can see a number of examples of the board, as part of the community, disagreeing with specific aspects of the CCWG proposals but I can see nothing that might lead to the perception that the board disagrees with the strategic accountability goal. Unless, of course, the mere disagreement on a specific aspect is to be taken as evidence of that.<br><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Could you perhaps provide some indications of what might be leading you to your perception?</span></div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><div>Cheers,</div><div> </div><div>Chris </div></div><div><br>On 20 Sep 2015, at 18:35, Nigel Roberts <<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net">nigel@channelisles.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>Bruce</span><br><span></span><br><span>Here's my impression of where the Board is at.</span><br><span></span><br><span>I am starting to get the perception that ICANN ("the corporation") seems to be positioning itself as in disagreement with the strategic goal of ensuring the corporation becomes (I was going to say 'remains' but that's entirely inaccurate) accountable to the people it was designed to serve.</span><br><span></span><br><span>I don't see much evidence of the "we are all ICANN" tree-hugging that, at least, to some extent, is required from time to time in the organisation's history.</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>In the last 10 years I've become able to argue the finer points of legal construction with the best of them, but that's not what, I feel, is needed now. But that's what seems to be going on. I feel ICANN's legal advisers are following their normal instincts -- "protect the client" -- and the client is seen to be Board/CEO/Staff and the status quo, not the "wider ICANN".</span><br><span></span><br><span>I'm willing to be proved wrong, (or as a judge might say: 'I'm prepared to listen to argument on that point') but I think that, on current perceptions, that is an uphill road.</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>On 20/09/15 09:18, Malcolm Hutty wrote:</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On 20/09/2015 00:48, Bruce Tonkin wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Except that the Board disagrees with our proposal to extend</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>access to the IRP to all materially affected parties.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Where do you get that impression from our submission?</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>The current state of IRP is:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>"Any person materially affected by a decision or action by the Board</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>that he or she asserts is inconsistent with the Articles of</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Incorporation or Bylaws may submit a request for independent review</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>of that decision or action."</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>No, the current state of IRP is:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>"Any person materially affected by a decision or action by the Board</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>that he or she asserts is inconsistent with the Articles of</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Incorporation or Bylaws may submit a request for independent review of</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>that decision or action. In order to be materially affected, the person</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>must suffer injury or harm that is directly and causally connected to</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>the Board's alleged violation of the Bylaws or the Articles of</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Incorporation, and not as a result of third parties acting in line with</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>the Board's action."</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>That effectively excludes non-contracted parties, who experience ICANN</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>policies "as a result of third parties acting in line with the Board's</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>action" i.e. when ICANN policy is applied to them by Registries.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>For the IRP to be meaningful to domain registrants, "materially</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>affected" must include materially affected by an ICANN policy.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>In our submission the Board stated:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>"The ICANN Board agrees that any person/group/entity materially</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>affected by an alleged violation of ICANN's Bylaws or Articles of</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Incorporation should have the right to file a complaint under the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>IRP."</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>If the Board is willing to remove the offending qualification above,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>then I am glad.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Malcolm.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><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>