<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Malcolm.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Believe me, I do not draw any inference of a practical necessity to simply accept what the Board tells us. I just wanted to clarify the various concepts in play as we discuss the Board's obligation to pass on our proposal vs. the Board's potential decision not to support it. I agree with your overall view of where this concept fits into the matrix.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Malcolm Hutty <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net" target="_blank">malcolm@linx.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 2015-10-13 03:29, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Lurking behind all this (in my mind) is Larry Strickling apparently<br>
saying that he does not want to receive a proposal that does not have<br>
the support of the Board.<br>
<br>
That would make any proposal sent with a lack of support from the<br>
Board a non-starter.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
I agree, but let's not overread that. We don't have a decision from<br>
the Board yet, we have a negotiating position.<br>
<br>
Before Larry get the proposal, it must be transmitted from us to<br>
the chartering organisations, and thence to the Board. The Board will<br>
then have to reconsider its position and take a final decision in<br>
the light of the fact that the proposal is now finalised and has<br>
the formal support of the community.<br>
<br>
For the Board to torpedo a community consensus proposal in the way you<br>
describe would be a huge step, with profound consequences for ICANN's<br>
credibility in the political community. The Board won't do that lightly.<br>
<br>
The Board might remain intransigent. But they might be willing,<br>
in those circumstances, to endorse a widely-supported proposal that<br>
is broadly aligned with their expectations even if it still contains<br>
a few elements against which they previously expressed concerns. So<br>
in that light, their claims that they are "95% in agreement" with our<br>
proposal is encouraging.<br>
<br>
So while I agree with your statement above in the abstract, I would avoid<br>
drawing from it any inference of a practical necessity to simply accept what<br>
the Board tells us to do. We are entitled to our own view, and insisting on<br>
it is not fatal to this process.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Malcolm Hutty | tel: <a href="tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523" value="+442076453523" target="_blank">+44 20 7645 3523</a><br>
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog<br>
London Internet Exchange | <a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a><br>
<br>
London Internet Exchange Ltd<br>
21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY<br>
<br>
Company Registered in England No. 3137929<br>
Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>