<div dir="ltr">hi Chris<div><br>This will be a good topic to raise in the ccNSO Webinars on these questions.</div><div><br></div><div>Concept-wise, it is easy to organise a carveout (an exception) to the bylaws veto/es that mean that particular parts of the bylaws cannot have changes vetoed by the community OR can only be vetoed by the relevant SO/AC.</div><div><br></div><div>It is harder but still possible to do a broader carveout to the bylaws veto/es that provides for the "outcomes of a PDP" to be exempt insofar as required. </div><div><br></div><div>In both cases the crucial question is who decides whether something fits within the carveout.</div><div><br></div><div>I say nothing at this point about the need for such a carveout (i.e. whether the scenarios you suggest are worth protecting for) or about its general desireability on a principled basis. Too late to think about this in the context of the current report.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>best</div><div>Jordan</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 30 July 2015 at 15:13, Chris Disspain <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au" target="_blank">ceo@auda.org.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span style="font-family:'Verdana';font-size:13px;color:rgb(102,102,102)">Thanks Mathieu.<div><br></div><div><span class=""><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">Did that ever happen or is that even conceivable ?</div></blockquote><div><br></div></span>I don’t think it has happened but it’s not inconceivable and we need to allow for the possibility IMO.</div><div><br></div><div>Also, note that a block may be achieved by blocking a by-law change that is necessary for the implementation of policy. </div><div><br></div><div>Further, under the current plans there is nothing to prevent the other SOs/ACs blocking a change to the by-law under which each of the SOs and ACs operates. I’d argue that a change to the ccNSO by-law as a result, for example, of a review of the ccNSO would be a matter for ‘approval’ by the ccNSO and not something that should be blockable by the other SOs or ACs. </div><div><br></div><div>To avoid any misunderstanding, I am NOT attempting to use this as way of hi-jacking the concept of blocking by-law changes but rather raising the matter to ensure we cover all bases. Are the SOs and ACs happy to have changes to the by-laws(s) by which they operate open to block by others ? If yes, so be it. If no, then we need a way around that.<br><div><br></div><div><br><div>
<p><span style="color:rgb(148,67,251);font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px">Cheers,</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p>Chris</p>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 29 Jul 2015, at 23:52 , Mathieu Weill <<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>> wrote:</div><br><div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Thank you Chris, that's very useful and I can understand. <br>
<br>
However that veto on the "extremely narrow band of global policies
for ccTLDs" would only be possible if the policy also implied a
Bylaw change. Did that ever happen or is that even conceivable ? IDN
ccTLD Fast track or Framework of Interpretation did not I believe. <br>
<br>
You have more experience than me on that. <br>
<br>
Best<br>
Mathieu<br>
<br>
<div>Le 29/07/2015 14:38, Chris Disspain a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family:'Verdana';font-size:13px;color:rgb(102,102,102)">Well, here I am prepared to express
an opinion. The ccNSO policy by-law is clearly written and sets
out the basis upon which ccNSO policy can be dealt with by the
Board. There is a requirement for the ccNSO to involve the other
relevant ICANN bodies in its policy making. The idea that the
extremely narrow band of global policies for ccTLDs that may be
undertaken by the ccNSO in accordance with the carefully crafted
and politically balanced methodologies that have been created
could, in essence, be blocked by other SOs and ACs is totally
unacceptable to auDA and I suspect would be unacceptable to a
number of my ccTLD colleagues.</span></blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: <a href="tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006" value="+33139308306" target="_blank">+33 1 39 30 83 06</a>
<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
</pre>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></span></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:small">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br>+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)<br>Email: <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br></div><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:small"><br><i>A better world through a better Internet </i></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>