[CCWG-ACCT] ICANN Board comments on Recommendation 9 – AoC Reviews
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Feb 4 10:59:02 UTC 2016
At least in ICANN works there is difference between participant and observer.
In fact Jordan has replied to that but it is a substantive difference.
Pls note that e.g. In CCWG we clearly distinguishing between Members participate and contribute to the discussion and vote , if required,whereas participants have the rights to participate at discussion without any voting rights. Observer just listen and normally do not have The rights to participate at and contribute to the discussion, unless the Chair would give them the floor on a limited basis, if they get the consent of the chair
We can not deny the fact and co fuse / mixed up the two terms
Sent from my iPhone
> On 4 Feb 2016, at 10:47, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
> Hi all, Bruce:
> Is this just a semantic difference or is it substantive?
> That is, I always assumed the two terms to be synonyms - basically the same thing.
> Does the board wish to distinguish between people who watch only (observers) and those who watch and can offer input (participants), due to a fear that the latter might expand into deliberating on their input too?
>> On Thursday, 4 February 2016, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
>> Recommendation 9 – AoC Reviews
>> Following on from the recent email exchange to clarify the Board’s concerns on Recommendation 9, the Board notes that many of its concerns can be addressed during implementation and the development of Operational Standards. The Board has a particular concern with two paragraphs in the most recent version.
>> At paragraph 54, the Board does not support the language that states “Review Teams are established to include both a limited number of members and an open number of participants.” The Board would support this language if it read “Review Teams are established to include both a limited number of members and an open number of observers.” The Board does not agree with a Bylaws-mandated inclusion of “participants” in these Review Teams. The Review Team composition is defined and limited because of the specificity of the review. Requiring open participation is not consistent with this purpose.
>> Similarly, the statement at Paragraph 57 that the Review Team would first try to find consensus among “participants”, and only if that is not successful, seek consensus among members. Consensus polling should only be among the Review Team members. The Board does not support maintaining “if consensus cannot be reached among the participants” at the beginning of that paragraph.
>> ICANN Board Liaison to the CCWG
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> Jordan Carter
> Chief Executive, InternetNZ
> +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community