[CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Revised draft - Voting weights in community mechanism
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Thu Jul 30 03:57:51 UTC 2015
This will be a good topic to raise in the ccNSO Webinars on these questions.
Concept-wise, it is easy to organise a carveout (an exception) to the
bylaws veto/es that mean that particular parts of the bylaws cannot have
changes vetoed by the community OR can only be vetoed by the relevant SO/AC.
It is harder but still possible to do a broader carveout to the bylaws
veto/es that provides for the "outcomes of a PDP" to be exempt insofar as
In both cases the crucial question is who decides whether something fits
within the carveout.
I say nothing at this point about the need for such a carveout (i.e.
whether the scenarios you suggest are worth protecting for) or about its
general desireability on a principled basis. Too late to think about this
in the context of the current report.
On 30 July 2015 at 15:13, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:
> Thanks Mathieu.
> Did that ever happen or is that even conceivable ?
> I don’t think it has happened but it’s not inconceivable and we need to
> allow for the possibility IMO.
> Also, note that a block may be achieved by blocking a by-law change that
> is necessary for the implementation of policy.
> Further, under the current plans there is nothing to prevent the other
> SOs/ACs blocking a change to the by-law under which each of the SOs and ACs
> operates. I’d argue that a change to the ccNSO by-law as a result, for
> example, of a review of the ccNSO would be a matter for ‘approval’ by the
> ccNSO and not something that should be blockable by the other SOs or ACs.
> To avoid any misunderstanding, I am NOT attempting to use this as way of
> hi-jacking the concept of blocking by-law changes but rather raising the
> matter to ensure we cover all bases. Are the SOs and ACs happy to have
> changes to the by-laws(s) by which they operate open to block by others ?
> If yes, so be it. If no, then we need a way around that.
> On 29 Jul 2015, at 23:52 , Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:
> Thank you Chris, that's very useful and I can understand.
> However that veto on the "extremely narrow band of global policies for
> ccTLDs" would only be possible if the policy also implied a Bylaw change.
> Did that ever happen or is that even conceivable ? IDN ccTLD Fast track or
> Framework of Interpretation did not I believe.
> You have more experience than me on that.
> Le 29/07/2015 14:38, Chris Disspain a écrit :
> Well, here I am prepared to express an opinion. The ccNSO policy by-law is
> clearly written and sets out the basis upon which ccNSO policy can be dealt
> with by the Board. There is a requirement for the ccNSO to involve the
> other relevant ICANN bodies in its policy making. The idea that the
> extremely narrow band of global policies for ccTLDs that may be undertaken
> by the ccNSO in accordance with the carefully crafted and politically
> balanced methodologies that have been created could, in essence, be blocked
> by other SOs and ACs is totally unacceptable to auDA and I suspect would be
> unacceptable to a number of my ccTLD colleagues.
> Mathieu WEILL
> AFNIC - directeur général
> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community