[CCWG-ACCT] PDP interaction with bylaws veto - proposed approach

Wed Nov 18 11:06:08 UTC 2015

I don't care really much about the other SO's, but the ccNSO is
different, at least in this context.

el

On 2015-11-18 12:35, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
> Dear Jordan
> 
>  
> 
> I wonder whether it is possible to objectively separate PDPs from other
> bylaw changes. How and who would be the arbiter in these cases?
> 
>  
> 
> PDPs may result in structural changes, which may affect other parts of
> the community. By giving the starting organization a veto over the
> exercise of the community power, aren’t we privileging that organization?
> 
>  
> 
> As far as I know when a PDP resulting in a bylaws change comes to the
> Board, there is no priviledged position for the Board members coming
> from the starting organization. The Board just decides with the
> well-being of the organization and the global public interest in their
> mind, right?
> 
>  
> 
> Just some thoughts and sorry for chiming in so belatedly, but as you
> know there are many parallel tracks ongoing
> 
>  
> 
> Regards
> 
>  
> 
> Jorge
> 
>  
> 
> *Von:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *Im Auftrag
> von *Jordan Carter
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 17. November 2015 08:32
> *An:* Accountability Cross Community
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* [CCWG-ACCT] PDP interaction with bylaws veto - proposed approach
> 
>  
> 
> *Dear CCWG colleagues,*
> 
>  
> 
> *PDP Interaction with Bylaws Veto*
> 
>  
> 
> In developing accountability improvements for ICANN, the CCWG has been
> careful to try not to change ICANN's core policy-making processes. The
> tools it has proposed to improve accountability are generally aimed at
> ICANN-wide issues, not policy development in the SOs.
> 
>  
> 
> An example has been raised where policymaking and the bylaws veto power
> might clash. Here is the scenario:
> 
>  
> 
> /The outcome of a PDP within an SO could mean that some consequential
> changes to the ICANN bylaws were needed to implement its recommendations./
> 
>  
> 
> /PDP is core policy making and should not be subject to community veto./
> 
>  
> 
> /If the PDP *did* require bylaws changes, and those changes *were*
> subject to the veto, then in effect the community veto would apply to
> policymaking./
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> This is a gap in our core proposal which can reasonably easily be closed.
> 
>  
> 
> *Here is the simplest way to close the gap and ensure policy-making is
> protected from said veto:*
> 
>  
> 
> *1: put a requirement (in the bylaws) that any Bylaws changes that are
> required to implement a PDP are clearly identified in this way, and are
> not combined with other, non-PDP related bylaws changes.*
> 
>  
> 
> *2: put a requirement in the Standard Bylaws veto process that for these
> two steps of the community escalation process:*
> 
> * -- decision to hold a community forum*
> 
> * -- decision to exercise the veto power*
> 
> *the SO which has performed the PDP giving rise to the Bylaws
> change MUST express its SUPPORT for the exercise of the veto.*
> 
>  
> 
> This approach has the least possible interference with the scheme of our
> community powers, does not reopen questions about relative weights
> between SOs/ACs, does not ban a veto being considered, etc. The
> community can still trigger a veto process and have the conference call,
> so issues causing concern will be discussed in a community-wide forum.
> 
>  
> 
> If this exceptional treatment to a bylaws change means the community
> really can't live with the outcome of a PDP and associated bylaws
> changes, they have a number of remedies they could use:
> 
>  
> 
> - they can work with the Board to ensure that the bylaws change proposal
> doesn't get the required (2/3?) majority in the Board to be approved
> (and so would not be implemented)
> 
>  
> 
> - they can recall the ICANN Board and replace it with a different Board
> that will follow the community's wishes in not implementing such a
> bylaws change
> 
>  
> 
> In other words, this does not leave the possibility of rogue "ICANN
> transformation by PDP" on the table.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Other options I considered were:
> 
>  
> 
> - a blanket rule that no standard bylaws veto could apply to a PDP
> bylaws change (rejected because this seemed to change the community
> power more than minimally)
> 
>  
> 
> - a rule that no standard bylaws veto could apply to a PDP bylaws change
> unless it exceeded certain impacts - for instance a net financial impact
> of $0.5m (rejected because it would be complex to decide the principles
> to apply to what was in and what was out, and because boundary cases
> would need adjudication)
> 
>  
> 
> - a rule that no standard bylaws veto could apply to a PDP bylaws change
> that only affected the Bylaws that constitute that SO (rejected because
> policy may properly go beyond the structure of the SO's bylaws)
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> I look forward to your feedback on this proposed way through, and I
> thank those who have taken the time to discuss the issue with me in
> coming to this recommendation.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> cheers
> 
> Jordan
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Jordan Carter
> 
> WP1 Rapporteur, CCWG
> 
>  
> 
> Chief Executive 
> *InternetNZ*
> 
> 
> +64-4-495-2118 <tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649
> <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> 
> Skype: jordancarter
> 
> Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz/> 
> 
> 
> /A better world through a better Internet/
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jordan Carter
> Chief Executive, InternetNZ
> 
> +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> 
> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 

-- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/