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

Wed Nov 18 22:23:47 UTC 2015

Hello Jordan,

Just filtered and the only document I saw was the one on threshold?

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 18 Nov 2015 23:09, "Jordan Carter" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

> hi Seun
>
> That document mentioned is the one I sent today, about ~1 hour ago.
>
> cheers!
> Jordan
>
> On 19 November 2015 at 11:00, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello Jordan,
>>
>> Actually I had made my point prior to yesterday and I just followed up
>> when I did not get your response. So I hope it was reported during the call
>> yesterday.
>>
>> That said, may I know what the group's decision is on this (came in late
>> on the call yesterday and only heard where you said you will be sharing a
>> document in few hours?)
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>> On 18 Nov 2015 22:09, "Jordan Carter" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> hi Seun
>>>
>>> I think I understand your point of view, but the CCWG discussed and made
>>> a decision on this matter at the call yesterday and so I think it's closed.
>>> If the SOs can live with the way it's been set out, I think the rest of us
>>> probably should too.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Jordan
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 November 2015 at 04:09, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Jordan,
>>>>
>>>> Just incase you did not get my initial mail, I am resending and would
>>>> be good to get a response to my question.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think any outcome of a PDP should be subject to community veto
>>>> unless a particular SO found that the board's implementation of the policy
>>>> does not reflect the true interpretation of the particular policy and such
>>>> petition should even the initiated/restricted to the affected SO. So as an
>>>> example, it will be wrong for GNSO to initiate a petition against a policy
>>>> implementation that emerged from the ccNSO. Even at that, the community
>>>> power should only be available as last resort to such SO; after exhausting
>>>> the reconsideration processes in their PDP.
>>>>
>>>> There is a proverb in my local language which says "...Chicken does not
>>>> eat another chicken intestines" it is absurd to provide a means of
>>>> weakening respective PDPs instead of strengthening it and that's the reason
>>>> why I don't think the second requirement you indicated is appropriate.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>>> On 17 Nov 2015 08:51, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello Jordan,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the share, just curious on your statement below:
>>>>>
>>>>> "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)"
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean this has been proposed on the list and already rejected?
>>>>> As it seem to be ideal way to go. So after ensuring what you've suggested
>>>>> in item 1, I think it will be good for what you stated above to follow
>>>>> suite. Although will suggest further modification as thus:
>>>>>
>>>>> "A blanket rule that no standard bylaws veto could apply to a PDP
>>>>> bylaws change, so long as the change reflects true interpretation of the
>>>>> PDP policy"
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
>>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>>>> On 17 Nov 2015 08:32, "Jordan Carter" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> *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 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
>>>>>> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>>>>>> Skype: jordancarter
>>>>>> Web: www.internetnz.nz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *A better world through a better Internet*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jordan Carter
>>>>>> Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +64-21-442-649 | 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jordan Carter
>>>
>>> Chief Executive
>>> *InternetNZ*
>>>
>>> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
>>> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>>> Skype: jordancarter
>>> Web: www.internetnz.nz
>>>
>>> *A better world through a better Internet *
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
> Web: www.internetnz.nz
>
> *A better world through a better Internet *
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151118/69794038/attachment-0001.html>