Hi On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 3:29 PM, David Post <[log in to unmask]> 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: > > "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: 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 . > 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. > > That is a very fundamental change in the relationship between the > stakeholders and the Board, and not for the better. It makes it MUCH more > difficult to challenge Board action that is inconsistent with the Bylaws. > Based on my comment above, perhaps it will be good to clarify what difficulty you are referring to especially as it concerns getting the larger community voice in the MEM and CMSM > > And maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get how this new "MEM > Arbitration" scheme doesn't completely destroy the IRP. The Board says > > "Establishment of the MEM is not intended to replace existing IRP > procedures. The MEM provides a legally enforceable arbitration decision on > violations of ICANN’s Fundamental Bylaws." > > It may not have been intended, but surely this task was precisely the one > that the IRP was supposed to take on, and now it's being off-loaded to some > arbitration system. How does that "not replace" the IRP? > I agree there is a bit of clarity required there as well. However the way i currently understand it is that the MEM would only be the legal vehicle to get ICANN to comply to its operating guideline as stipulated in the "fundamental bylaw" so MEM itself does not necessarily check compliance(as that is to be determined through the community community forum) but actually drives it. Overall i think what is proposed requires a number of legal clarification/confirmation of its workability. Regards > > 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" < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: With respect Chris, I am > deeply serious. The board’s commitment to the multi-stakeholder model > is not. >  > And as for “size†when it reflects depth of analysis, yes … it > usually does matter. Glibness is easy when brevity is the goal. > Thoughtful consideration requires extended analysis. > >  > 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 Board’s brief “we don’t like it and > here is our three page counter proposal†does not deserve our respect. >  > Paul >  > Paul Rosenzweig > > [log in to unmask] > <[log in to unmask]> > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> > Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 > > Link to my PGP Key > <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> >  >  > From: Chris Disspain [ mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] Sent: > Saturday, September 12, 2015 8:20 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig < > [log in to unmask]> Cc: Accountability Cross > Community < [log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: > [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in >  > Ah…sso, clearly, size does matter….to some….. >  > With respect, you can’t be serious. >  >  > Cheers, >  > Chris >  > > On 12 Sep 2015, at 21:50 , Paul Rosenzweig < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: >  > Dear Seun >  > With respect, you can’t be serious. The Board’s alternate proposal > is a 3-page memo. The CCWG’s 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) > …. >  > Paul >  > Paul Rosenzweig > > [log in to unmask] > <[log in to unmask]> > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> > Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 > > Link to my PGP Key > <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> >  >  > From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:[log in to unmask] > <[log in to unmask]> ] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:40 PM To: > Jordan Carter <[log in to unmask] > Cc: Accountability Cross > Community < [log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: > [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in >  > 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 >  > You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which have > now been lodged: >  > > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.html >  > I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo on the > MEM. >  > It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into > account as we refine the proposal. >  > 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. > >  > Happy reading! >  > Cheers > Jordan > > > -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ > > +64-21-442-649 | [log in to unmask] > Sent on the run, apologies for brevity > > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community > mailing list [log in to unmask] > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community > mailing list [log in to unmask] > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >  > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community > mailing list [log in to unmask] > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > [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 > book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n > <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0> > music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com > > ******************************* > > ******************************* > David G. Post book http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music > http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic > work http://www.davidpost.com > blog http://www.volokh.com/author/DavidP > ******************************* > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>[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!