<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
My concern about asking the Board what they would decide is that it
is far to hypothetical for them to give any answer other than the
one Bruce offered.<br>
<br>
How can a Board give any answer other than the one that says, give
us a recommendation, lets get the community view and see how the 3/4
unfolds in our discussions.<br>
<br>
Closer to being answerable is whether there is a legal way for them
to do what the CCWG might ask for. <br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01-Jan-15 18:08, Paul Rosenzweig
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:00c001d02617$ec3209f0$c4961dd0$@redbranchconsulting.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Dear Kavouss</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Thank you for this question which is
a very sensible one. Let me try to clarify what I am trying
to accomplish by my proposal.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I am a complete and firm support of
Board accountability to the Community. That is 100% clear
and I think you and I are in firm agreement on that.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I may, however, not be clear about my
method and process. From my perspective the strongest
accountability would be with a clear Bylaw limitation on
ICANN functionality and a provision for an outside arbiter.
Both of those changes would require Board approval. I am
not trying to subordinate the CCWG to the Board. Far from
it – what I am trying to do is find out as early in the
process whether the Board is going to be willing to agree to
subordinate itself to the Community through those
mechanisms. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>So, I think the place where you may
misunderstand me is at the very end of your note – where you
say “why you want to limit CCWG to just follow those areas
of accountability that Board wishes?” I think you are
assuming that if the Board said “no” to the questions I was
asking that my reaction would be to say “oh … oh well. That
is OK. If the Board won’t agree, we can’t do it.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>My real reaction, in practice, would
be exactly the opposite – I would urge the Community to dig
in for an extended discussion with the Board and use my
limited powers of persuasion to rally the community to
demand that the Board changed its mind. </span><span>J</span><span>
And I would probably urge CCWG to recommend those same
things anyway – but at least we would do that knowing what
was going to happen.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Does that help?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Regards</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Paul</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>**NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS --
EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>509 C St. NE</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Washington, DC 20002</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Paul Rosenzweig</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com"><span>paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>O: +1 (202) 547-0660</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>M: +1 (202) 329-9650</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or
paul.rosenzweig1066</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9"><span>Link
to my PGP Key</span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span> Kavouss
Arasteh [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January 1, 2015 4:39 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Paul Rosenzweig<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Seun Ojedeji;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how
bylaw changes are made</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Paul,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The way you commenting on the matter
could have two different interprétations or leave two
different impressions:</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">A) You are a firm supporter of
accountabilty process when we note your comments about
Mathieu</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">B) You wish to raise the question Under
discussion to the Board asking what they wish to see from
CCWG and what they do not see from CCWG .The latter
interpretation ,in my view, seems to be subordinating CCWG
to the Board in the sense that we just study, elaborate
and recoomend those area of accountability that Board is
comfortable with but not CCWG address the full picture,
objectives, requiremnets of accountability.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Pls find a coherence between
interpretation A) and interpretation B) .In order words if
you are really in favour of addressing the accountability
in a fullflege scope why you want to limit CCWG to just
follow those areas of accountability that Board wishes?<br>
Thank you very much to clarify your position.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best Regards</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kavouss </p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2015-01-01 21:35 GMT+01:00 Paul
Rosenzweig <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>:</p>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Bruce is a wonderful man.
But we don’t need his opinion, we need a formal
commitment from the Board. That’s why we need to
ask the question in an official manner. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Indeed, I would posit that
if the accountability working group tasked with
ensuring accountability by ICANN is reluctant to
even ask the Board a question then the communities
capacity to actually reign in Board excess when/if
it perceives such would be very limited. If we
are so unwilling to even ask a question, will we
be willing to tell the Board “no.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>In any event, if we choose
not to ask this question, then the scope of WS1
has just expanded to essentially include almost
all oversight mechanisms we might conceivably want
– which would, I think, be the wrong result.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Warm regards</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Paul</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>**NOTE: OUR NEW
ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>509 C St. NE</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Washington, DC 20002</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Paul Rosenzweig</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank"><span>paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>O: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660"
target="_blank">+1 (202) 547-0660</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>M: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650"
target="_blank">+1 (202) 329-9650</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Skype: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739"
target="_blank">+1 (202) 738-1739</a> or
paul.rosenzweig1066</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9"
target="_blank"><span>Link to my PGP Key</span></a></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span>
Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com"
target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January 1, 2015 10:09
AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Seun Ojedeji<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-Accountability]
Regarding how bylaw changes are made</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear All </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I agree to the term that no
one should dictate the CCWG.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Still why there is a need
that we raise any such question to the Board,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Bruce is quite active and
requested to continue the Liaison</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kavouss</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
On 1 Jan 2015, at 15:28, Seun Ojedeji <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com"
target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p>Hi Bruce,</p>
<p>Thanks for this information, I will then
suggest that this WG determine if those
steps will indeed be appropriate for us
especially since WS1 is more of a perquisite
to transition. One would expect some
adjustments on timing and wording rights to
be made in the process, also board voting
rights in this particular process may need
to be agreed upon. It will not be
encouraging to have implementation stopped
on the basis of no 2/3 board
majority....time utilization is an important
factor in all these. So the earlier we
involve board (without having them dictate
for us) the better.</p>
<p>Regards<br>
sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 1 Jan 2015 04:55,
"Bruce Tonkin" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au"
target="_blank">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>>
wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Seun,<br>
<br>
>> I think writing to board to
know how it will treat the WG outcome
especially when some of it's
implementations will require by-law
modifications that further involve the
ICANN community in decision making
process may be useful.<br>
<br>
In terms of the process for making
bylaws changes, changes have previously
been made to accommodate recommendations
from the review teams associated with
the work of the Accountability and
Transparency Review Teams (ATRT) <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/atrt-2012-02-25-en"
target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/atrt-2012-02-25-en</a>
.<br>
<br>
Any archive of all previous versions of
the bylaws is available here:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/archive-bc-2012-02-25-en"
target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/archive-bc-2012-02-25-en</a><br>
<br>
Based on our current practice I would
expect the process to be as follows:<br>
<br>
- Board accepts recommendations from the
CCWG<br>
<br>
- General Counsel's office prepares
specific text to change in the bylaws<br>
<br>
- proposed bylaws changes are put out
for public comment (45 days)<br>
<br>
- Board then votes on the bylaws
amendments - a 2/3 majority of the
Board is required to make a bylaw change<br>
<br>
If there is significant community
comments against the proposed bylaws
language - then a new draft of the
bylaws would be put out for public
comment that is consistent with the
recommendations from the CCWG.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bruce Tonkin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing
list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>