<p dir="ltr">For the record, I don't think MEM is perfect (and may never be) but it's more apealing to me considering that it's the only proposal that leaves structures untouched as much as possible (SD is also somewhat appealing as well, owning to the fact that some powers can't be directly exercised and require minimal structural change). May I know why you think the MEM for instance starts with arbitration and mediation?</p>
<p dir="ltr">I am also in absolute agreement with a model built on cooperation and consensus, as I have usually raise that as a preference in some of my mails. However, I am also faced with the reality that when options gets exhausted a show of hand will usually come to be a last option to gauge consensus and I doubt we won't be exhausting our options often. That said, what is not clear is that you seem to imply that the SM model will achieve that better than any other model. As you rightly stated, isn't it finally about what is documented in the guideline (bylaw)?</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 11 Oct 2015 20:38, "Avri Doria" <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
On 11-Oct-15 15:22, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br>
> Not sure I get why you awarded accolades to SM in this instance, Isn't<br>
> collaboration(doing things cooperatively) based on set of guidelines<br>
> possible in any model including SM?<br>
<br>
Court is always there at the end of the day. I just think that a model<br>
built on cooperation and consensus (a non voting SM) is less likely to<br>
end up in court than a model that starts with adversarial behavior -<br>
arbitration and mediation.<br>
<br>
A well formed SM model builds on a combination, a hand-fasting, of the<br>
Board's fiduciary roles and responsibilities with the Community's roles<br>
and responsibility to represent the interests of the public as best they<br>
can though the bylaws processes and outreach. They both check each other<br>
and both can be appealed to the IRP when they go off the rails.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote></div>