[CCWG-ACCT] Separability: picture of the relation of CWG's IFR & SCWG with CCWG process

[Avri Doria]

On 27-Oct-15 16:13, Guru Acharya wrote:
> Dear Avri,
>
> This is extremely helpful and an excellent contribution!
>
> Questions:
>  
> 1) As per Annex L of the CWG proposal (Para 1390), wouldnt the
> recommendation of the IFR for the creation of the SCWG also require
> GNSO & ccNSO supermajority approval and CM approval? Accordingly, I
> have created a revised version of the process that I understood (in a
> separate document since I am not able to add it your document). Please
> correct me if I am wrong.
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1NYLD847RoUWZDOT-_1wIlsHxjXo3guax-tYEKTga-lY/edit?usp=sharing

Good catch, I should have remembered/checked.  I have updated the picture.
(as you did not include the picture in this first email)
besides i like playing with the doc in drive.

>
> 2) How would the procedure comparatively differ in case of a
> membership model? Would board approval be replaced by member approval
> in both steps where board approval is required? Or would the member
> approval be invoked only after board rejection?

I do not think it is that different, though the SD model relies more on
powers put in the articles and the bylaws than on the notion of
membership. (Speaking as a non lawyer who does not really know.)

>
> 3) In case the board is spilled and then reconstituted, would the
> process begin from square 1 (reconstitution of IFR), or would the
> process continue from the point where it was rejected by the spilled
> board?

I do not see why it would need to restart.  Would probably require a
reconsideration.   Probably take a sequence like:
- ask for reconsideration
- start the spill process and ask for a hold on the reconsideration
until suc time as a new board was seated
- complete the reconsideration

but I am just guessing at this point based on current process.  I am not
sure what the deadlines for reconsideration would be in the new regime.

>
> 4) Under what scenarios can arbitration be invoked in case of board
> rejection? Say the board rejects the recommendation citing security
> and stability - in that case on what grounds can the community resort
> to arbitration - which bylaw would the board have vitiated for
> arbitration to be invoked?

>From what I understand it has to be between persons on a matter related
to a bylaw or the articles. 

Hopefully others who know more will weigh in.

avri

>
> Thanks.
> Guru
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I have attempted to draw up a discussion set of slides on the
>     connection
>     between the CWG process for Separability and the CCWG accountability
>     and  enforcement measures.
>
>     The drive doc is open for comments:
>
>     https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kmDLv0yF41lb9OBlCKnl6o3TMps6AlTF8Njso5zcW9w/edit?usp=sharing
>
>     I have also attached a PDF.
>
>     avri
>
>
>
>
>
>     ---
>     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>     https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>     Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus