[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG report stability and implementation (was Re: inconsistency in bylaws spotted)

Tue Apr 26 17:32:27 UTC 2016

+1

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 26.04.2016 um 19:29 schrieb Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>:

I agree with Greg.  This is a clarification in the text that does not change the report in any way.

Thanks,
Robin

On Apr 26, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:

I've replied to this point on the original thread.  In short, my proposal does not change the report.  If anything, the current proposed bylaws text changes the report by implying that a higher level of approval for the FOI was intended, when that was not the intent of the group or the proposal.

Greg

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Andrew,

Hopefully part of my message is not quoted to imply I support changing the report(it's rather to raise the obvious implication of opening up an already submitted report). However, just to remove any doubt, It's a +1 from me on what you have said as well.

Cheers!

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 26 Apr 2016 14:35, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:29:30PM +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> if there is consensus (based on CCWG charter) to change the report that was
> already submitted in the manner proposed then i am fine with it as well.

I am under the impression that, regardless of its consensus,
CCWG-Accountability can't change the report.  The report's been
shipped off.  It's the report that people are evaluating, not the
state of CCWG consensus at any given time.

This is why I have expressed, in some cases strongly, rather serious
reservations about the way "implementation" has proceeded such that
some things the CCWG said may be being adjusted.  Most serious, in my
opinion, is the continued inclusion of 1.1(d) in the draft bylaws.
1.1(d)(ii) includes references to documents that aren't written and
can't possibly be evaluated.  It even includes a reference to an
agreement between ICANN and an entity that does not yet exist and that
might not be named as it is named in these draft bylaws.  The idea
that one can evaluate such a bylaw is, quite frankly, stupefying.  Yet
the inclusion of this provision means that the to-be-written contract
(or under (F) any renewal thereof) can include any provision at all,
and it won't be subject to challenge.

The CCWG can't change its report now, and it must ensure that the
bylaws actually conform with the report as it is written.  If this
creates facts that people are unhappy with, well, that's what
amendment procedures are for.  We'll get to see whether the Empowered
Community actually can work as a community.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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