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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Nov 19 07:05:38 UTC 2015 

You may be correct that allowing another AC/SO to initiate a petition without the explicit support of the affected SO is a waste of time. But Jordan's proposal is a simple and seeminly sufficient fix to the problem.
-- 
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On November 19, 2015 12:59:18 AM EST, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>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
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151119/e2f25014/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list