[CCWG-ACCT] With regards to incorporation of reviews from the AoC

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Is there anyway to pull the AOC WHOIS review from the WS1 bylaws and
move it to WS2.  I think one price would be that we would not be able to
cut the AOC, until such time as we completed tha review , unless a gap
arrangement can be agreed on.

If not, it seems we need to reword the obligations of the WS1 WHOIS 
bylaw real soon now.

Do we need a WS1 subgroup (a WP5) to start immediately figuring out the
right approach for dealing with this conundrum?

We can then proceed to:

- rework the bylaw now to more generally refer to a review on the
current state of gTLS RDS including WHOIS and ongoing work on the Netgen
gtTLD RDS.

- remove the bylaw from WS1 and rework it in WS2

- ?

avri


On 05-Aug-15 06:26, James Gannon wrote:
>
> Hi Steve's and CCWG,
>
>
> I followed the conversations around the incorporation of the AoC
> reviews into the bylaws on the CCWG webinar lat night with a lot of
> interest. 
>
>
> I believe that there is an extremely interesting discussion to be had
> as to the appropriateness and scope of the WHOIS review in particular,
> as a strong privacy advocate I think that the review may not go far
> enough and I would have loved to have beefed up to review as part of
> the CCWG's work along with many other fixes that I could envision
> within the AoC that I would like to see, but on this matter its
> important that we remember the scope of the CCWG and the scope of the
> incorporation of the AoC effort.
>
>
> The incorporation of the AoCs came largely out of the work on Stress
> Test 14 which among its conclusions stated 
>
>881.
>
>       Another proposed measure is to import Affirmation of Commitments
>     provisions into the ICANN Bylaws, and dispense with the bilateral
>     Affirmation of Commitments with NTIA. Bylaws would be amended to
>     include Affirmation of Commitments 3, 4, 7, and 8, plus the 4
>     periodic reviews required in paragraph 9.
>
>882.
>
>
> Currently located in the 2nd Draft Proposal as paragraph 882 on page
> 107. The Stress Test working party has been working on these key parts
> of the proposal since March, allowing plenty of time for input to be
> gathered from every stakeholder with regards to one of the key methods
> by which we as the CCWG are judging our own work.
>
> From my own memory, but I'd ask Steve DelBianco or CLO to correct
> me, I don't recall any consensus push within the ST-WP to
> fundamentally assess the content of the AoC or in particular
> the incorporation of the AoC reviews and indeed the wording of the
> conclusion to Stress Test 14 reflects that in its choice of "import"
> as its active verb when referring to the AoC incorporation effort. We
> tread a fine line here in the CCWG between doing what is necessary in
> our opinion to enhance the accountability of ICANN and enacting
> additional changes via the CCWG process.
>
> Its my opinion that changing the substantive content of the AoC
> reviews during their incorporation into the bylaws would undermine the
> fragile balance that the CCWG has strove to achieve throughout its
> work. Do I think that the WHOIS review needs to be addressed, most
> certainly yes in a major manner, but the CCWG is a
> wholly inappropriate venue for that change to be addressed. Changes to
> the AoC as they stand now are within the control of the ICANN board
> and the NTIA to change, if indeed we have a current AoC affirmation
> that is "wrong and destructive" I would suggest that the board needs
> to approach both the NTIA and the community with a suggested change,
> this is within the ability of the board to suggest and for the NTIA to
> agree to as per the current AoC text below
>
>             11. The DOC enters into this Affirmation of Commitments
> pursuant to its authority under 15 U.S.C. 1512 and 47 U.S.C.
> 902. ICANN commits to this Affirmation according to its Articles of
> Incorporation and its Bylaws. This agreement will become effective
> October 1, 2009. The agreement is intended to be long-standing, but
> may be amended at any time by mutual consent of the parties. Any party
> may terminate this Affirmation of Commitments by providing 120 days
> written notice to the other party    
>
> Or as an alternative once the reviews are incorporated into the bylaws
> the board of the community or both working together can bring a bylaws
> amendment to change the text of the WHOIS review bylaw. We are not
> baking in the reviews to never be changed, we are bringing across a
> core set of accountability measures without substantial changes to
> reflect their current standing, I hope that everyone understands that
> the CCWG is not here to fix every aspect of ICANN, we are here to
> enhance its accountability, lets be cognisant of that in our work as
> we come to this critical time.
>
> Sorry for a wall of text but I think that this is an important issue
> for the community to address and for the board to understand the
> reasoning for the communities stance on this. 
>
> -James
>
>881.
>
>      
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus