[WP1] Thanks, next work steps (pls read)

Malcolm Hutty malcolm at linx.net
Tue Jun 16 14:32:52 UTC 2015



On 16/06/2015 12:12, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
> so. I’m sure I left out everyone’s favorite detail but my goal was to
> reduce this to the philosophical question it should be and lay to rest
> of the factual questions that are all but resolved.

Thank you Jonathan for this sterling effort.

It does, however, miss out two quite separate arguments.

Firstly, it misses out Becky's argument about the change to fiduciary
duty. So it's not necessarily a question of whether you fear more a
litigious community or a malfeasing Board, as you put it: for adherents
to Becky's argument, whether or not you have members changes where the
Board's duty lies.

Secondly, there is another distinctly under-appreciated risk: the
concern that the Board might disregard an IRP decision not in defiance
of the community, but at the community's behest. For adherents to this
view, enforceability needs to be ensured not for the benefit of the
community alone, but also for the benefit of the successful IRP
complainant, which might not be the same thing at all.

I think both these arguments are important. While I appreciate your
attempt to simplify, I'm afraid that because of these the issue simply
doesn't boil down to "whether enforceability is likely to foster a more
cooperative board or an uncooperative community and which outcome should
be the priority" for everybody.

Malcolm.

-- 
            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
           21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY

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




More information about the WP1 mailing list