[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for CCWG ACCT Meeting #68 - 17 November

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Thu Nov 19 05:59:18 UTC 2015


Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 19 Nov 2015 00:55, "Jordan Carter" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'd like to clarify for the list that the proposal the CCWG approved at
its call yesterday does what Seun asks for: it does not allow the community
to veto a bylaws change related to a PDP.
>
> Only if the SO that ran the PDP itself feels that the bylaws change is
flawed can a veto proceed. Otherwise the SO can prevent it.
>

SO: This is what I needed to know. That said, your statement above still
seem to imply that SO that did not run the PDP can actually start a
petition. Again (for PDP) this is procedurally wrong and IMO it's a waste
of resources and time. Secondly using the current threshold proposed, even
if the SO that ran the PDP supports the veto there is still likelihood that
other SO/AC may not. Leaving such option open weakens the essence of a PDP
in the first place.

> The idea behind allowing the community discussion of a Conference Call
phases of the escalation path was so that the whole community could hear
the issues that were raised. But the veto is off the table.
>
SO: I am not against the escalation path, I am against opening a bottom up
PDP prolicy that has been implemented correctly to petition, I am against
not restricting such option to the SO that ran the PDP only!

> There was good representation on the call yesterday from the SOs who this
primarily affects. I hope we can continue to regard the matter as closed.
>
SO: I am not questioning the representation on the call, I am asking
whether what was raised on the list was considered during the call. From
your response (which you should have written the first time I asked this
question), it seem part of it was considered. I have indicated the other
concern above. It's fine if you want to consider it closed but at least I
have made my point.

Regards
> best
> Jordan
>
> On 19 November 2015 at 12:38, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Co-Chairs,
>>
>> I don't think it's appropriate to give an impression that what is said
on the list does not matter unless one says it during the call. I clearly
stated that what was proposed by Jordan required some reconsideration yet
the minutes of the last call did not take note of that.
>>
>> 4. PDP interaction with Standard Bylaws Veto
>>
>> ·        Proposal that PDP changes come through as a package.
>>
>> ·        Read the full proposal here:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-November/008104.html
>>
>> ·        No objection to the proposal.
>>
>> Even though one expect the communities will not veto bylaw change that
emanated from a PDP. It is procedurally wrong to subject outcome of a PDP
to community veto. Providing such option opens up can of worms that those
who have made this decision may not be there to resolve. The fact that the
board approves a policy that emanated out of PDP (which is a bottom up
process) implies board's commitment to implement the spirit of the policy
and it is if/when the implementation is not rightly done that it should be
questioned. Actual implementation of a policy SHOULD not be open to
community veto! Even if the policy requires a bylaw change so long as it
went through PDP and so long as board approves it, it should be final.
>>
>> Overall I think the CCWG is creating too much stumbling block to make an
organisation board act efficiently.
>>
>> Regards
>> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>
>> On 17 Nov 2015 22:52, "Brenda Brewer" <brenda.brewer at icann.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG ACCT meeting #68 - 17
November will be available here:  https://community.icann.org/x/h7VYAw
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Brenda
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Action Items
>>>
>>> ·
Action (CCWG Members): Chartering Org appointed members to socialise
the 'Dublin Update' with respective communities and
>>> prepare for release of full proposal on 30 November.
>>>
>>> ·
Action (Becky/Chairs): Provide an explicit certified description of
the task and all of the considerations for legal counsel to
incorporate in this
>>> drafting exercise.
>>>
>>> ·
Action (Adler/Sidley): Request that legal counsel review the language
for the Mission, noting the group's preference and Sebastien's concern
>>> for non-native English speakers.
>>>
>>> ·
Action (Jordan/WP1): Send a written proposal to the CCWG mailing list
describing the issue and the proposed solution(s). Include
>>>
clarification on whether or not abstention is considered support or not.
>>>
>>> Notes
>>>
>>>
These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through
content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.
>>>
>>> 1. Welcome, Roll Call, SOI
>>>
>>> ·
Agenda slightly modifed in order, but the items remain the same as
circulated earlier this week.
>>>
>>> ·        Samantha and Mathieu on audio only.
>>>
>>> 2. Opening Remarks
>>>
>>> ·
Dublin Update published on Sunday (was originally labeled as a
Summary, but considering the feedback on the list, the document was
modified
>>> slightly in purpose)
>>>
>>> ·
There are some outstanding items. These will be discussed on today's call.
>>>
>>> ·
This document is a communication tool for those outside the CCWG who
have had a difficult time following the progress.
>>>
>>> ·
Support and endorsement of Chartering Orgs is critical to the success
of the CCWG.
>>>
>>>
Action (CCWG Members): Chartering Org appointed members to socialize
the 'Dublin Update' with respective communities and prepare for
release
>>> of full proposal on 30 November.
>>>
>>> 3. Mission Discussion
>>>
>>> ·
On the left is the language circulated immediately after Dublin (based
on 2nd Draft Proposal).
>>>
>>> ·
Since then, the discussion has evolved to present different
alternatives (one from Andrew Sullivan, one from Shatan/Mueller/Bladel
and one from Mueller).
>>>
>>> ·        Support for Alternative 1 language.
>>>
>>> ·
Add "ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce
agreements with contracted parties [in service of / in so far as these
>>>
agreements are consistent with /in furtherance of / consistent with/
in performing] its Mission.". This group's preference was "in service
of"
>>>
>>>
Action (Becky/Chairs): Provide an explicit certified description of
the task and all of the considerations for legal counsel to
incorporate in this
>>> drafting exercise.
>>>
>>>
Action (Adler/Sidley): Request that legal counsel review the language
for the Mission, noting the group's preference and Sebastien's concern
for non-native English speakers.

>>>
>>> 4. PDP interaction with Standard Bylaws Veto
>>>
>>> ·        Proposal that PDP changes come through as a package.
>>>
>>> ·        Read the full proposal here:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-November/008104.html
>>>
>>> ·        No objection to the proposal.
>>>
>>> 5. Decision-making  - thresholds of support
>>>
>>> ·
There is no document for this issue, but there has been discussion on list.
>>>
>>> ·
If the GAC does not participate in the community mechanism, the
thresholds currently in place would require unanimous participation.
>>>
>>> ·
GAC position currently: GAC will take a position when we have the
position on the paper. Until then, the GAC has consensus
>>> input on the second draft report.
>>>
>>>
Action (Jordan/WP1): Send a written proposal to the CCWG mailing list
describing the issue and the proposed solution(s). Include
>>>
clarification on whether or not abstention is considered support or not.
>>>
>>> 6.  ST-18 subgroup update
>>>
>>> ·        The first ST-18 subgroup call was yesterday.
>>>
>>> ·        Another call scheduled for tomorrow (Wednesday) at 13:00 UTC.
>>>
>>> ·
The goal is to come back to the CCWG by next Monday at the latest (so
that results are ready for the CCWG call on Tuesday).
>>>
>>> 7.  Timeline Discussion
>>>
>>> ·        21 – 23 Nov-15 Feedback from CCWG
>>>
>>> ·        23-Nov-15 Final comments on Full Proposal content due from
CCWG by midnight UTC
>>>
>>> ·        24 – 25 Nov  Finalizing content (send to
translation/formatting at midnight UTC on 25th)
>>>
>>> ·        30-Nov-15 Beginning of Public Comment Phase 2 (and begin
professional proofreading/final editing)
>>>
>>> ·        12 -Dec-15 Anticipated date for delivery of translations
>>>
>>> ·        21-Dec-15 Public comment ends
>>>
>>> ·        24-Dec-15 Staff summary of public comment for review
>>>
>>> 8.  AOB
>>>
>>> n/a
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/20151119/78ebb200/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list