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

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Thu Nov 19 08:41:52 UTC 2015 

Hello Alan,

Waste of time and resource is just a minor aspect of the issue that I have
raised. I will try to explain myself one last time. Here is what Jordan
proposed:

"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.*"

Concerns identified:

- The above does not indicate whether initial petition is restricted to the
SO that ran the PDP

- The above did not make it explicitly clear that the veto only applies in
a situation where implementation of the policy is not found to be
reflective of the bylaw change.

- The above implies that even if the SO that ran the PDP supports, it still
does not mean that the SO will achieve her purpose based on the threshold
requirement for exercising/initiating community powers process.

- PDPs in itself has embedded in it, processes for reconsideration et all.
The above did not make it clear that use of veto will only be applicable
when such process did not suffice.

- It is an abuse on PDP to have a means by which AC/SO that did not run a
PDP to have the option to challenge such policy implementation through the
community veto. The best such SO/AC can do is to go through the
reconsideration processes available within such PDP

- The above does not strengthen PDP but rather weakens it by providing
loopholes.

- The above is leaving loopholes that could complicate board decision
making processes by having 2 source of conflicting powers i.e power vested
in PDP and power vested on SD.

- The time and resource wastage though is minor can become significant
depending on how often those petitions start rolling in.

- The community powers is supposed to enforce PDP policy compliance but the
above is not doing that.

- Too much power is being accrued to the SD and could make the organisation
ungovernable if care is not taken.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 19 Nov 2015 08:05, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> 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/20151119/1213945b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list