At 11:29 AM 9/14/2015, Seun Ojedeji wrote:


>DP wrote:  My apologies if someone has pointed 
>this out already, but there's one feature of the 
>Board's proposal that is very disturbing.  The 
>memo describing the proposed enforceability 
>regime [ 
>https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission121.pdf] 
>outlines the process:Â
>
>"4. to initiate formal MEM proceedings, the 
>agreed number of SOs and ACs must support the 
>petition. If there is sufficient support amongst 
>the SOs and ACs then representatives of those 
>supporting SOs and ACs would become the MEM Issue Group.
>
>5. The MEM Issue Group would then submit a 
>Request for Arbitration to the Standing Panel 
>alleging a violation of at least one Fundamental Bylaw ..."
>
>This completely inverts (and subverts) the 
>nature of the process we have been discussing 
>for months.  Instead of a Board that (a) is 
>empowered to act by stakeholder consensus, and 
>is (b) kept in check by an IRP process in which 
>its actions can be challenged by anyone 
>materially affected by the action (or by any of 
>the SOs and ACs, acting on its own), the new 
>proposal turns that upside down:Â  Under the 
>proposal, stakeholder consensus is required to 
>BLOCK Board action - the challenge can go 
>forward only if "the agreed number of SOs and ACs" support the challenge .
>
>
>         SO wrote: Isn't this similar to the 
> voting threshold described under the SMM? 
> whereby certain number(percentage) of votes of 
> the CMSM would determine whether to act on 
> board's action/inaction. To simply put, are you 
> saying a single SO/AC should be able to BLOCK 
> board action? because the current CCWG does not allow that.


Sorry if this wasn't clear.  First of all, I'm 
not talking [and the Board, here, isn't talking] 
about the power to block Board action.  As I 
understand things, in the current CCWG proposal 
for the SMM, the stakeholders can block Board 
action only if a high voting threshold 
requirement is met.  That is as it should 
be.  But each of the SMM components could, even 
without support from the others, bring an claim 
before the IRP to have the Board action declared invalid.

In the Board's new proposal/suggestion, the 
standard to BLOCK Board action (the high voting 
threshold) has been converted into the standard 
just to bring an "arbitration" that looks exactly 
like a pseudo-IRP proceeding.

To put it differently:  under the SMM model, if 
there was some kind of consensus within the GNSO, 
say, or the ALAC, that the Board had acted in 
violation of the Bylaws, it would have two 
options: to try to engage the others into a 
stakeholder declaration of invalidity, or it 
could go to the IRP to get that 
declaration.  Under the Board's new MEM proposal, 
it's option would require engaging the others and 
obtaining widespread approval just to file for an 
independent look at the claim.  That's a big change.


David



>At 09:49 AM 9/12/2015, Carlos Raul wrote:
>
>>Chris, Paul
>>
>>It is my personal view that since ATRT1 the 
>>community has been asking for a better 
>>specific  "rationale" of Boards decisions. 
>>Not longer or shorter, but BETTER and coming 
>>from the Board (or Committee) itself (consensus 
>>or not);and NOT from Staff (outside counsel) si 
>>the community has a better understanding of the decisions (or proposal).
>>
>>This question to me in this case has been 
>>framed in terms of "enforcibilty" and the risk 
>>of capture of the single member as per the 
>>memo. I look forward to my next half day in 
>>airports and flights  to look for the 
>>RATIONALE of these two very significant arguments.
>>
>>Have a nice weekend you both.
>>
>>Carlos Raúl
>>On Sep 12, 2015 9:31 AM, "Paul Rosenzweig" 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask] 
>> > [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>With respect Chris, I am deeply 
>>serious.  The board’s commitment to the 
>>multi-stakeholder model is not.
>>Â
>>And as for “size†when it refleeflects 
>>depth of analysis, yes â€Â¦ it usually does 
>>matter.  Glibness is easy when brevity is 
>>the goal.  Thoughtful consideration requires extended analysis.ÂÂ
>>Â
>>A CCWG process that has gone on for nearly a 
>>year and involved 100s of members of the 
>>community in meeting taking place across the 
>>globe and tens of thousands of man hours does, 
>>actually, produce a proposal that has the 
>>consensus of the Community.  The 
>>Boardâ€ââ„¢s brief “we don’t like it and 
>>here is our three page counter proproposal†
>>does not deserve our respect.ÂÂ
>>Â
>>Paul
>>Â
>>Paul Rosenzweig
>>
>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] 
>>
>>O: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>+1 (202) 547-0660
>>M: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>+1 (202) 329-9650
>>VOIP: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>+1 (202) 738-1739
>>Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>>
>><http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>Link 
>>to my PGP Key
>>Â
>>Â
>>From: Chris Disspain [ mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 8:20 AM
>>To: Paul Rosenzweig 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask] 
>> > [log in to unmask]>
>>Cc: Accountability Cross Community 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
>>[log in to unmask]>
>>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
>>Â
>>Ah…sso, clearly, size does matter….to someâ€e…..
>>Â
>>With respect, you can̢۪t be serious.
>> >
>>Â
>>Â
>>Cheers,
>>Â
>>Chris
>>Â
>>
>>On 12 Sep 2015, at 21:50 , Paul Rosenzweig 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask] 
>> > [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>Â
>>Dear Seun
>>Â
>>With respect, you can̢۪t be 
>>serious.Â.  The Board’s alternate e 
>>proposal is a 3-page memo.  The CCWG’s pr 
>>proposal is an integrated 180 page documents 
>>which, even if you limit yourself to the parts 
>>directly related to the Single Member model 
>>(not including stress tests, or the fundamental 
>>bylaws themselves) is roughly 8-10x as long (depending on how you count it) ….
>>Â
>>Paul
>>Â
>>Paul Rosenzweig
>>
>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] 
>>
>>O: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>+1 (202) 547-0660
>>M: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>+1 (202) 329-9650
>>VOIP: <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>+1 (202) 738-1739
>>Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>>
>><http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>Link 
>>to my PGP Key
>>Â
>>Â
>>From:Â Seun Ojedeji 
>>[<mailto:[log in to unmask]>mailto:[log in to unmask] ]Â
>>Sent:Â Friday, September 11, 2015 9:40 PM
>>To:Â Jordan Carter 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] >
>>Cc:Â Accountability Cross Community 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
>>[log in to unmask]>
>>Subject:Â Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
>>Â
>>Hi Jordan,
>>I don't think there is so much details to 
>>develop than what we currently have with the 
>>sole member (which by the way also requires a lot of details).
>>I think the main question we need to ask the 
>>CCWG legal is whether the leadership of the 
>>SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal 
>>standing under the California law. Every other 
>>aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and just 
>>the clarity on the possibility of enforcement 
>>is what lawyers needs to come in on.
>>Perhaps it's also good to note that what is 
>>being proposed by board has been discussed one 
>>way or the other in the past but somehow we did 
>>not follow-up on the thoughts up.
>>Regards
>>Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
>>Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>hi all
>>Â
>>You may be interested to read the comments from 
>>the ICANN board which have now been lodged:
>>Â
>>
>><http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.html>http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.html 
>>
>>Â
>>I'd draw your attention to the cover note / 
>>summary and to the memo on the MEM.
>>Â
>>It's good to see some concrete proposals from 
>>the Board to take into account as we refine the proposal.
>>Â
>>An initial observation - there is a lot of 
>>detail that would need to be developed if the 
>>alternative proposal was to be complete enough 
>>to undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan.
>>Â
>>Happy reading!
>>Â
>>Cheers
>>JordanÂ
>>
>>--Â
>>Jordan Carter
>>Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>>
>><tel:%2B64-21-442-649>+64-21-442-649Â |Â 
>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>>_______________________________________________
>>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] 
>>
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>_______________________________________________
>>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] 
>>
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>Â
>>_______________________________________________
>>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] 
>>
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>*******************************
>David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
>blog (Volokh Conspiracy) 
><http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post>http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
>book (Jefferson's 
>Moose)Â 
><http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n 
>Â Â Â Â
>music 
><http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic>http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic 
>publications etc.  http://www.davidpost.com      Â
>*******************************
>
>*******************************
>David G. Post    book 
>Â 
><http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n>http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n 
>Â Â Â Â Â music 
><http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic>http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 
>  work 
>Â 
><http://www.davidpost.com/>http://www.davidpost.com 
>           blog  
>Â  <http://www.volokh.com/author/DavidP>http://www.volokh.com/author/DavidP
>*******************************
>
>
>
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Seun Ojedeji,
>Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>web:Â  Â  Â  <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>Mobile: +2348035233535
>alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> 
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>
>Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it
>Right is right even if no one is doing it - Hope you agree!
>

*******************************
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
music 
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic  publications 
etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************