My response would be that there is no reason to assume that the board comments will be accepted. If they are not accepted, and we end up with CCWG's 3rd draft, on net I would vote for it in preference to no transition. The strengthened IRP and improved mission statement with explicit limitations are the reasons I would go for it.

If the board comments are accepted, and we get no inspection, an eviscerated mission limitation, and no respect for human rights, I could be swayed to go against it.

The presence of GAC in the Sole Designator mechanism is disturbing, and NCSG is indicating to the CCWG that it does not support that.


From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Post
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 10:55 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The CCWG Accountability Proposal -- Should It Be Rejected


It does appear to be a particularly bad combination of (a) a proposal that has itself been considerably watered down, and (b) a Board that is suggesting that even that is too strong,and needs to be weakened further.

David


At 08:44 PM 12/14/2015, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:

At the risk of stirring the pot, I want to ask the community whether or not the accountability proposal has been so watered down that the NCSG ought to oppose it outright and, concurrently, seek agreement from the Commercial users such that the gNSO was opposed to the transition in its current form.  If I were to tally the reasons to oppose the current draft they would include:

·        Enhanced GAC role through the 2/3 vote rule and there membership in the Empowered Community
·        Incomplete rights of inspection
·        Continued board opposition to human rights and mission statement as drafted
·        Process fouls in any number of ways, most recently in the overly short 21-day comment period on what the Co-Chairs say is the "final report"
·        Enhanced role of ACs in the empowered community to the detriment of the SOs where policy actually resides (this is above and beyond the GAC issue already noted)

I could go on, but frankly, for myself, the proposal seems to have fallen sufficiently short that I would probably "vote" no, if votes were being counted.  It seems to me that someone needs to say that out loud ....

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
Red Branch Consulting, PLLC
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
www.paulrosenzweigesq.com<http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/>
Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
[[]]<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016>


*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n       <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>
music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic <http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0> publications etc.  http://www.davidpost.com         <http://www.davidpost.com         />
*******************************