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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Tue Apr 14 12:20:45 UTC 2015

A "fundamental" bylaw is one that is more difficult to change than a
regular bylaw.  For instance, there would be a higher threshold for a vote
to change a fundamental bylaws.

The content of a fundamental bylaw can be just about anything.  However,
usually fundamental bylaws cover things that are essential to the nature of
the organization.


On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>

> Dear Kavouss,
> I provide some answers inline, with the purpose to clarify where matters
> are currently handled.
> Le 14/04/2015 10:24, Kavouss Arasteh a écrit :
>> 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
> Adam circulated the agenda yesterday (see attachment)
>> 2. hyperlink the documents in the order of  their pre3sentation
> The relevant links to the available documents are in the attachment
>> 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.
> that is our plan.
>> 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
> None of these memos is intended to be a direct work product of our group.
> However legal advice will provide during our call a general recap of their
> views, and you (and other colleagues) will have the opportunity to ask
> questions.
>> 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 .
> We will provide this question to the legal advisors, through the legal
> group
>> 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
> This point is currently being discussed within WP1 proposals. I am sure
> they will consider this input.
>> 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
> This item is on our agenda today, so we'll have the opportunity to
> exchange during the session.
>> 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
> This point is currently being discussed within WP1 proposals. I am sure
> they will consider this input.
>> 8.Inconsistencies between the title and the body of the texts in
>> 6.5.2,6.5.3, 6.5.4 .
> I suppose you also refer to WP1.
>> 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"
> The "fundamental Bylaw" concept was introduced in Singapore and confirmed
> during the CCWG call that ensued. WP2 is tassked with definition and
> scoping of that concept we are introducing. I am confident their input will
> address your question.
> I hope that is helpful to clarify.
> Best
> Mathieu
>> We need to carefully look at these
>> Regards
>> Kavouss
>>   .
> --
> *****************************
> Mathieu WEILL
> AFNIC - directeur général
> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
> *****************************
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150414/d283388b/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list