<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I think our job is to carry out the "dependencies" of the CWG as faithfully as possible. We should not be interjecting our own opinions or re-doing the CWG's work. The answers to our questions should be found in the CWG's final report, and if there ambiguities, they should be referred back to the CWG for clarification.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I've reviewed the CWG Final Report and I think the answers are fairly clear. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">You ask "<span style="font-size:12.8px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">I wonder if the same sort of co-decision process is required for the formation of a Special IFR.</span>" The CWG Final Report (para 124)states "<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:20.9524px">In order to trigger a Special IFR, it would require a vote of both of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils (each by a supermajority vote according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority)." There is no mention of a Board role in the formation of a SIFR. This appears to be consistent with Avri's slides.</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:20.9524px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:20.9524px">As to the formation of a SCWG if recommended by the IFR, the Final Report states "</span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333px;line-height:19.0476px"></span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:11pt">If the IFR determines that a separation process is necessary, it will recommend the creation of a Separation Cross Community Working Group (SCWG). This recommendation will need to be approved by a supermajority of each of the GNSO and the ccNSO Councils, according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority, and will need to be approved by the ICANN Board after a public comment period, as well as a community mechanism derived from the CCWG-Accountability process.</span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333px;line-height:19.0476px"> </span><a name="_ftnref57" style="color:rgb(59,115,175);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333px;line-height:19.0476px"></a><a href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53779816#_ftn57" style="color:rgb(59,115,175);text-decoration:none;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333px;line-height:19.0476px">[57]</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333px;line-height:19.0476px"> </span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:11pt"> A determination by the ICANN Board to not approve a SCWG that had been supported by a supermajority of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils will need to follow the same supermajority thresholds and consultation procedures as ICANN Board rejection (by a supermajority vote) of a PDP recommendation that is supported by a GNSO supermajority.</span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:20.9524px">"</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:20.9524px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default">Basically the same process would take place if the SCWG decided to recommend a separation.</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:20.9524px">I'm not sure I would describe this as a co-decision process, but it does require approval of both the Board and the community, which I think would be done through the Community Forum and the Single Designator. As to a decision by the Board that the community disagrees with, the next steps would be those in the last sentence above, which I think would need to take place before any IRP or Board recall.</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The relative timing of the Board decision and the community decision is not entirely clear, but my reading and recollection is that it is intended to be simultaneous but separate.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Finally, as to Bylaws, I would say that Bylaws relating to the community decision process should be drafted by the CCWG, since the performance of the community mechanism is uniquely the competency of this group. Other bylaws relating to the SIFR/SCWG/Separation process should be drafted by the CWG. I note that the CWG asked Sidley to come up with a draft plan for preparing the Bylaws, including their thoughts on division of labor between the CWG and CCWG. I don't have that at my fingertips, but that should be fairly dispositive, unless we (or the CWG) see something we disagree with. We should look at that ASAP.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#333333"><span style="line-height:20.9524px">I'm</span></font></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Jordan Carter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">hi all, hi Avri<div><br></div><div>Thanks for these diagrams, which I've had another look at today. I was drawn back to them because one of the "not closed" things in my mind is the role of the community as a decision-maker at the final approval stage of a transition of the Names IANA Functions - if that is recommended by a Special IFR.</div><div><br></div><div>My reading of the CWG-Names final proposal is that the group was after a co-decision process - that both the ICANN Board, and the community organised through some mechanism, would have to approve separation before it could be done. This is similar to the approach we have used for changes to Fundamental Bylaws.</div><div><br></div><div>I think with the Community Mechanism we have the vehicle to make the Community part of the co-decision. And through independent review of Board decisions or non-decisions, we have some tools as a community to deal with a Board part of the co-decision with which we don't agree.</div><div><br></div><div>If people agree with this co-decision approach, my remaining question is which group is drafting the relevant bylaws - us, or the CWG.</div><div><br></div><div>If people think actually there is meant to be a separate Community decision after the Board decision, they should say so now...</div><div><br></div><div>Also, I wonder if the same sort of co-decision process is required for the formation of a Special IFR. My thought is not, consistent with Avri's slides. But keen on others' thoughts.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>cheers</div><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 28 October 2015 at 07:38, Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
I have attempted to draw up a discussion set of slides on the connection<br>
between the CWG process for Separability and the CCWG accountability<br>
and enforcement measures.<br>
<br>
The drive doc is open for comments:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kmDLv0yF41lb9OBlCKnl6o3TMps6AlTF8Njso5zcW9w/edit?usp=sharing" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kmDLv0yF41lb9OBlCKnl6o3TMps6AlTF8Njso5zcW9w/edit?usp=sharing</a><br>
<br>
I have also attached a PDF.<br>
<br>
avri<br><br></blockquote></div><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></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></div>