[IOT] Notes on next meeting and repose and more

Malcolm Hutty malcolm at linx.net
Mon Apr 30 17:15:10 UTC 2018


Dear David,

I write to put on record my objection to your re-opening the decision on
repose, which I regard as an abuse of our process.

You say that your purported decision to re-open this question is the
outcome of a "review":
> My concern about consensus is not unlike the discussion we had about 
> it this past February 22 when Sam mentioned making a minority 
> statement and we got into the discussion of consensus that set this
> review in motion.

This simply seeks to give your arbitrary reversal an unwarranted colour
of procedure. The only process we have for "review" is to go out to
public comment. What you are describing is nothing more than your own
decision to come back and announce, in a wholly arbitrary manner, that
the decision we took last year no longer stands.

You also refer to the our first draft report, as if it had some special
authority that our decision of last year did not:
> it strains imagination, in my view,
> to call consensus on an idea that so radically shifts the rule we
> originally proposed to the community.

If you are going to re-open the decision of June 12 2017, which was
properly arrived at, I will re-open the First Draft Report, which was not.

The flaws that undermine the propriety of issuing the first draft report
are:

* That report was made by taking work product that had not been properly
reported to and agreed by this group to the CCWG, there having been no
agreement report out a conclusion by this group, and no discussion or
agreement as to what the Chair would say to the CCWG;
* When that report was made, it was done without taking into account
comments that had been made on the list, but which the Chair admitted
had not been seen;
* When I asked to add a minority comment to the first report before it
went for public comment, you refused me, even though ICANN is being
invited to make a minority comment now;
* The first draft report was issued without a second reading, either
here or in the CCWG.

Accordingly, there is no reason to accord our first draft report such
great deference, and so little to our decision to yield to the public
comment, in which a very broad cross-section expressed their outrage at
what was written therein.

I do not raise these because I enjoy raking over past mistakes. But if
you insist on questioning the legitimacy of a properly conducted process
that reversed that earlier decision, and do so by praying in aid that it
"so radically shifts" our first draft report, you leave me no choice but
to point out that our June 2017 decision has a great deal more
procedural propriety to it than our first report.

In any case, Sidley have clearly advised us that to introduce repose
would be in violation of the Bylaws, not once but twice. Why is that not
the end of the matter?

Sincerely,

Malcolm Hutty.

-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
           Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA


More information about the IOT mailing list