[CCWG-ACCT] Rec 2 - escalation process - second reading draft

[Matthew Shears]

Thanks Jordan - agree with proposed changes.  Just a couple things:

Page 7 para 12 - I think we can remove the words " within six days" in 
the second bullet  as it is clear that support must be achieved in 7 days

Para 27 page 11 - I may have missed the discussion/rationale this but 
assume this is marked N/A because it is an approval and not a rejection?

Para 3 page 1 and para 50 page 12 - reference to % - did we agree that 
such a an approach would be taken if so do we need to refer to %s in the 
threshold table?

Thanks

Matthew




On 13/01/2016 06:40, Jordan Carter wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> Attached in PDF and Word are my tracked changes building on the work 
> Bernie/Alice did to do the changes to the timeframes for escalation.
>
> Thanks for kicking it off, Alice and Bernie and others!
>
> The comments together form a second reading draft for the call on 
> Thursday.
>
> This approach, in essence:
>
> - has a two-SO/AC requirement to petition for any of the powers 
> (except whole Board recall - that would be three SOs/ACs)
> - ditches the Conference Call stage
> - extends timeframes for SO/AC decision
>
>
> This new approach is in recognition of the desire noted by SOs and ACs 
> to have longer timeframes than the previous process allowed, and in 
> recognition that in exercising any of the community powers, a 
> reasonable amount of informal community dialogue and discussion is 
> highly likely - and so SOs and ACs will have had several weeks to 
> consider the issue before the final 21 days allowed to decide after 
> the Forum.
>
> The new timeframes flow as follows, with this showing maximum possible 
> time:
>
>
> 21 days: Petition deadline for first SO/AC
>
> +
>
> 7 days: Time for a second/third SO/AC to sign on for the petition
>
>
> [if no valid petition, lapses]
>
> +
>
> 21 days: Time within which Community Forum must be organised
> {note - within 7 days of valid petition, written rationale must be 
> circulated - this does not go "on top of" the 21 days for the Forum, 
> it is within it.}
>
> +
>
> 21 days: Time within which SOs and ACs must decide whether to exercise 
> the power.
>
>
> So the longest possible time is 70 days.
>
> There's included an ability by the SO or ACs petitioning to extent to 
> the next in-person meeting, EXCEPT (a new exception) where it's about 
> the Budget power - we cannot put the budgets on hold for months, in my 
> view.....
>
>
>
> cheers
> Jordan
>
>
> -- 
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz 
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan at internetnz.net.nz');>
> Skype: jordancarter
> Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
>
> /A better world through a better Internet /
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jordan Carter
> Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>
> +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz 
> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>
> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160113/a3e736f6/attachment-0001.html>