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=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> 

 
<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=em
ail&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016>