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

[Malcolm Hutty]

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