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

Tue Apr 14 13:26:37 UTC 2015

Thanks Greg, Keith!

For Spanish speaking folks is easier to remember "fundamental" (as opposed
to "universal" on the one extreme, and "subjective" rights on the other).
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 07:25 Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:

>  Thanks Greg.
>
>  I think we've also used the term "golden bylaw" in the past to
> describe a similar concept.
>
>  Best,
> Keith
>
> On Apr 14, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   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.
>
>  Greg
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>  tHERE ARE MANY MANY CASES LIKE THE ABOVE THAT NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED.
>>> 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
>>
>>
>    _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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/f14e4eb7/attachment.html>