[CCWG-ACCT] Agenda and dcoument for today< meeting

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Co-Chairs
Thank you very much for your valuable works and tireless follow up action.
In order to avoid difficulties that some of us faced on 13 April WP1meeting
opening thnhree docuts almost com[plex ones, may I request you to kindly
1. Provide the agenda
2. hyperlink the documents in the order of  their pre3sentation
3. fFollow ,as usual, the most practiceabkle order of debate taking agenda
and walking through it item by item allowing people to comment.and when
walking through a given doc. take it portion by portion or section by
section in order to have a more efficient process.
4..Kindly advise the status of the legal assements Memos, 18 March ,4
April,,10 April, 11, April
which ones are being discussed where and in what order .
In most of these Memos, there are variety of options /alternatives for each
subject. when and how we reconcile  or at least minimize the number of
options and alternatives
5. Kindly establish some order for introducing terms and definition . For
Example ,in legal Memos , we have terms such as "Members "and "Group
Member"are these two having the same meaning or desteny .
6.Paragraphs 9.3 and 9.3.1 of AoC  for review process of gTLD and WHOIS in
which the chair of GAC( in consultation with GAC members) has an important
role in the compositioon of the review team . In transferring these
paragraphs to Bylaws, these roles were  not carried forward.Arguments given
by two CCWG attendees were not convincing
7 For stress test 18, thje argument quoted from the NTIA announcemnet
appearing as background for change is not valid since the NTIA statement
has had different objectives and did not pointed to the issue of consensus
buildingt in GAC..Moreover the explanations given in thwe table are
inconsistent with each other .
Before we go further, we need to consult GAC about this and their position
on the matter required to be sought in BA 53 gac MEETING
7. There are threshold for certain actions in the document labelled "
community empowerment"paragraph 6.5.2  was /is   arbitrarily chosen for
example 60% .in other parts of 6.5.5 it is mentioned  20% .Where these
thresholds come from
There are norms, practices to be followed.
Simple majority, 2/3, 3/4, and 4/5 are threshold normally used.For
initiation of an action the threshold is 25% and not 20%.
Paragrapg 6.5.3 refereed to  mechanism in paragraph 6.5.1 ,in the latter no
such mechanism is found
8.Inconsistencies between the title and the body of the texts in
6.5.2,6.5.3, 6.5.4 .
9. Reference is made to change of /to "Fundamental"Bylaws as well as change
of/ to "Bylaws"but there is no mention what is mesant by "fundamental
"provirions and how they are distinted from other provisions of Bylaws"nON
fUNDAMENTAL"
tHERE ARE MANY MANY CASES LIKE THE ABOVE THAT NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED.
We need to carefully look at these
Regards
Kavouss
  .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150414/56c16293/attachment.html>