[CCWG-ACCT] Slides CCWG Call #39

Chris Disspain ceo at auda.org.au
Tue Jul 7 12:30:53 UTC 2015


Malcolm appear to.


Cheers,

Chris

> On 7 Jul 2015, at 22:30 , Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
> 
> hi Chris
> 
> I don't understand how your comment relates to Malcolm's?
> 
> cheers
> Jordan
> 
> On 8 July 2015 at 00:21, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au <mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>> wrote:
> Hello Malcolm,
> 
> I’m afraid I disagree with your interpretation. An intransigent position that does not countenance the possibility of movement away from or towards various solutions is a guarantee of failure when it comes to reaching consensus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
>> On 7 Jul 2015, at 22:16 , Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net <mailto:malcolm at linx.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 07/07/2015 13:02, Kimberly Carlson wrote:
>>> Here are today’s slides in both PowerPoint and PDF formats.
>> 
>> On slide 2, "Overview", it says
>> 
>> "The two new models seek to address concerns expressed by members of the
>> multi-stakeholder community on the Community Empowerment Mechanism
>> described in Section 5 of CCWG’s Accountability Initial Draft Proposal
>> for Public Comment (4 May 2015) (“Initial Proposal”)"
>> 
>> 
>> I'm afraid that this suggests that once again the lawyers have been
>> asked to examine the wrong question.
>> 
>> 
>> The issue we must consider is not merely which of these two models will
>> best deliver on Section 5 of the CCWG's proposal, the community powers,
>> but which will best deliver *all* of it.
>> 
>> Section 3 ("Principles") and Section 4 ("Appeals Mechanisms") are
>> essential elements of the CCWG proposal. So the lawyer's ought to have
>> been asked to consider how the two models differ in their effects on
>> those two sections too.
>> 
>> As it happens, there is a passing mention of disparate effect: on slide
>> 16 "Empowered SO/AC Designator Model" under "Problems/Complications" it
>> states "SOs and ACs would not have the reserved powers of members to
>> reverse board decisions like [...] implementing IRP recommendations."
>> 
>> However this crucial distinction has been given very little visibility
>> of emphasis, I think as a result of concentrating only on Section 5, to
>> the exclusion of Sections 3 & 4.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>>            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523>
>>   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>> London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ <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
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jordan Carter
> 
> Chief Executive 
> InternetNZ
> 
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> 
> Skype: jordancarter
> 
> A better world through a better Internet 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150707/dc963849/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list