<p dir="ltr">Hello Jordan,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Thanks for the share, just curious on your statement below:</p>
<p dir="ltr">"A blanket rule that no standard bylaws veto could apply to a PDP bylaws change (rejected because this seemed to change the community power more than minimally)"</p>
<p dir="ltr">Do you mean this has been proposed on the list and already rejected? As it seem to be ideal way to go. So after ensuring what you've suggested in item 1, I think it will be good for what you stated above to follow suite. Although will suggest further modification as thus:</p>
<p dir="ltr">"A blanket rule that no standard bylaws veto could apply to a PDP bylaws change, so long as the change reflects true interpretation of the PDP policy"</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 17 Nov 2015 08:32, "Jordan Carter" <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="margin-bottom:11px;overflow:visible"><div style="min-height:2482px"><div style="min-height:2482px"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font size="2"><span><b>Dear CCWG colleagues,</b></span></font></div><div><b style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><font size="2"><br></font></b></div><div><b style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><font size="2">PDP Interaction with Bylaws Veto</font></b></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">In developing accountability improvements for ICANN, the CCWG has been careful to try not to change ICANN's core policy-making processes. The tools it has proposed to improve accountability are generally aimed at ICANN-wide issues, not policy development in the SOs.</span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">An example has been raised where policymaking and the bylaws veto power might clash. Here is the scenario:</span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><i style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><font size="2">The outcome of a PDP within an SO could mean that some consequential changes to the ICANN bylaws were needed to implement its recommendations.</font></i></div><div><i style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><font size="2"><br></font></i></div><div><i style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><font size="2">PDP is core policy making and should not be subject to community veto.</font></i></div><div><i style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><font size="2"><br></font></i></div><div><i style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><font size="2">If the PDP *did* require bylaws changes, and those changes *were* subject to the veto, then in effect the community veto would apply to policymaking.</font></i></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">This is a gap in our core proposal which can reasonably easily be closed.</span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><b style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><font size="2">Here is the simplest way to close the gap and ensure policy-making is protected from said veto:</font></b></div><div><b style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><font size="2"><br></font></b></div><div><b style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><font size="2">1: put a requirement (in the bylaws) that any Bylaws changes that are required to implement a PDP are clearly identified in this way, and are not combined with other, non-PDP related bylaws changes.</font></b></div><div><b style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><font size="2"><br></font></b></div><div><b style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><font size="2">2: put a requirement in the Standard Bylaws veto process that for these two steps of the community escalation process:</font></b></div><div><b style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><font size="2"> -- decision to hold a community forum</font></b></div><div><b style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><font size="2"> -- decision to exercise the veto power</font></b></div><div><b style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><font size="2">the SO which has performed the PDP giving rise to the Bylaws change MUST express its SUPPORT for the exercise of the veto.</font></b></div><div><br></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">This approach has the least possible interference with the scheme of our community powers, does not reopen questions about relative weights between SOs/ACs, does not ban a veto being considered, etc. The community can still trigger a veto process and have the conference call, so issues causing concern will be discussed in a community-wide forum.</span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">If this exceptional treatment to a bylaws change means the community really can't live with the outcome of a PDP and associated bylaws changes, they have a number of remedies they could use:</span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">- they can work with the Board to ensure that the bylaws change proposal doesn't get the required (2/3?) majority in the Board to be approved (and so would not be implemented)</span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">- they can recall the ICANN Board and replace it with a different Board that will follow the community's wishes in not implementing such a bylaws change</span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">In other words, this does not leave the possibility of rogue "ICANN transformation by PDP" on the table.</span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Other options I considered were:</span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">- a blanket rule that no standard bylaws veto could apply to a PDP bylaws change (rejected because this seemed to change the community power more than minimally)</span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">- a rule that no standard bylaws veto could apply to a PDP bylaws change unless it exceeded certain impacts - for instance a net financial impact of $0.5m (rejected because it would be complex to decide the principles to apply to what was in and what was out, and because boundary cases would need adjudication)</span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">- a rule that no standard bylaws veto could apply to a PDP bylaws change that only affected the Bylaws that constitute that SO (rejected because policy may properly go beyond the structure of the SO's bylaws)</span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">I look forward to your feedback on this proposed way through, and I thank those who have taken the time to discuss the issue with me in coming to this recommendation.</span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">cheers</span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Jordan</span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Jordan Carter</span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">WP1 Rapporteur, CCWG</span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></font></div><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br></span></font></div><div dir="ltr"><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br><a href="tel:%2B64-4-495-2118" value="+6444952118" target="_blank">+64-4-495-2118</a> (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649" value="+6421442649" target="_blank">+64-21-442-649</a> (mob)<br>Email: <a>jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Web: <a href="http://www.internetnz.nz/" target="_blank">www.internetnz.nz</a> </span></font></div><div dir="ltr"><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br><i>A better world through a better Internet<span></span></i></span></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div style="min-height:70px;margin-bottom:0px;overflow:hidden"><div><div><div><div><div><br></div><font color="#222222"><img src="https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/photos/me?at=AF6bupOucTjwCs9wZukdGAKPf5VnWtvbmQ&sz=100&pld=1"></font></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><br>-- <br>Jordan Carter<br>Chief Executive, InternetNZ<p><a href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649" value="+6421442649" target="_blank">+64-21-442-649</a> | <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><p>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity<br></p></p>
<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>