<p dir="ltr">Hello Jordan,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Just filtered and the only document I saw was the one on threshold?</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 18 Nov 2015 23:09, "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 dir="ltr">hi Seun <div><br></div><div>That document mentioned is the one I sent today, about ~1 hour ago.</div><div><br></div><div>cheers!</div><div>Jordan</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 19 November 2015 at 11:00, Seun Ojedeji <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Hello Jordan,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Actually I had made my point prior to yesterday and I just followed up when I did not get your response. So I hope it was reported during the call yesterday.</p>
<p dir="ltr">That said, may I know what the group's decision is on this (came in late on the call yesterday and only heard where you said you will be sharing a document in few hours?)</p><span>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
</span><div><div><div class="gmail_quote">On 18 Nov 2015 22:09, "Jordan Carter" <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">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 dir="ltr">hi Seun<div><br></div><div>I think I understand your point of view, but the CCWG discussed and made a decision on this matter at the call yesterday and so I think it's closed. If the SOs can live with the way it's been set out, I think the rest of us probably should too.</div><div><br></div><div>cheers,</div><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 19 November 2015 at 04:09, Seun Ojedeji <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Hello Jordan,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Just incase you did not get my initial mail, I am resending and would be good to get a response to my question.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I don't think any outcome of a PDP should be subject to community veto unless a particular SO found that the board's implementation of the policy does not reflect the true interpretation of the particular policy and such petition should even the initiated/restricted to the affected SO. So as an example, it will be wrong for GNSO to initiate a petition against a policy implementation that emerged from the ccNSO. Even at that, the community power should only be available as last resort to such SO; after exhausting the reconsideration processes in their PDP.</p>
<p dir="ltr">There is a proverb in my local language which says "...Chicken does not eat another chicken intestines" it is absurd to provide a means of weakening respective PDPs instead of strengthening it and that's the reason why I don't think the second requirement you indicated is appropriate.</p><span>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
</span><div><div><div class="gmail_quote">On 17 Nov 2015 08:51, "Seun Ojedeji" <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><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" target="_blank">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><p>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity<br></p><p></p>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">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>
</blockquote></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:small">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:small"><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 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 style="font-size:small">Web: <a href="http://www.internetnz.nz" target="_blank">www.internetnz.nz</a> </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></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:small">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:small"><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 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 style="font-size:small">Web: <a href="http://www.internetnz.nz" target="_blank">www.internetnz.nz</a> </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></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>