[IOT] [TRUNCATED LIST] Re: [Ext] Re: [CORRESPONDENCE] Cherine Chalaby to David McAuley - Interim Supplementary Rules for the IRP

[Chris Disspain]

Thank you Malcolm. That is crystal clear.


Cheers,

CD

> On 24 Oct 2018, at 13:30, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 23/10/2018 18:39, Chris Disspain wrote:
>> Hi Malcolm,
> 
> Replying to your questions in reverse order:
> 
>>> the record supports your (1) reservation of your continued objection;
>>> and (2) agreement that the interim rules could proceed so long as
>>> ICANN's commitment to make future transition arrangements was included
>>> in the Interim Procedures.  [Note, that commitment was already in a
>>> footnote and remains in there
>> 
>> I’m asking if the transcript is incorrect in your view and you didn’t
>> say what the transcript sets out?
> 
> 
> If you really want to focus on the transcript, and insist on my comment
> on its accuracy, then I must note that the transcript does have some
> mis- and failed transcriptions of words, omissions, and one point where
> my comments were marked as "indiscernible". So I have gone back to the
> audio recording, and made my own corrected transcript:
> 
> Malcolm Hutty:
> "Thank you, David. You are handling this meeting in an especially formal
> manner, so I think it important that I respond accordingly with a formal
> statement for the record on this point. I am already on record as saying
> that I do not believe this time for filing is consistent with the
> Bylaws. We are in dispute about that, and we have decided to adopt this
> interim procedure to create the time to resolve this dispute but without
> holding up what ICANN assures us is urgent for these bylaws on an
> interim basis. So, I'm OK with that, but only on the understanding that
> I want understood for the record that that in no way waives or resiles
> at all from the disagreement or the dispute as to the compatibility of
> this clause with the bylaws or its propriety. Thank you."
> 
> None of that could reasonably be construed as support for or agreement
> with the provision in question.
> 
> Instead it shows acceptance that there was no further opportunity for
> discussion within the IOT, but determination to seek resolution through
> other channels.
> 
> Now I'm not sure what this really matters to the Board - surely it is
> the substance of the issue you should be considering - but I do think
> that reporting the above to Cherine as "No objections were received" is
> less than frank, and conceals from him the real nature of the decision.
> 
>>> Are you suggesting that the Oct 9th meeting constituted a test for
>>> unanimous consent?
>> 
>> No. 
> 
> In that case, what does it matter what I said, whether this might be
> misconstrued as agreement, or even whether I in fact agreed? The
> majority supported reporting out, so that's what was done. Please note
> that I never raised a complaint about this: this enquiry is at your [the
> Board's] instigation.
> 
> That still leaves the Board with the responsibility to consider whether
> the claim of inconsistency with the Bylaws has merit.
> 
> Cherine is now in receipt of a formal letter from and on behalf of the
> whole NCPH constituent entities (BC, IPC, ISPCP and NCSG) advising you
> of substantive concerns with the Interim Rules, matching my own.
> 
> My suggestion would be to focus on that, rather than picking over the
> IOT meeting of 9th October, which neither David nor I requested.
> 
> Malcolm.
> 
> P.S. Bernie: please would you have the transcript corrected to match the
> section quoted above.
> 
> -- 
>            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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20181024/3c735a56/attachment.html>