<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Jorge,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'm not sure I agree with your statement: "<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px">PDPs may result in structural changes, which may affect other parts of the community.</span>" There are limitations on what PDPs can consider and achieve, and I'm struggling to think of a way that a PDP could result in structural changes. I can't think of a past PDP that has had such a result. I'm primarily familiar with GNSO PDPs, but I expect the same is true of ccNSO PDPs. If this is to be a basis for objection to Jordan's proposal, I think this would need to be a significant possibility. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">If you could "put some meat on the bones,' so to speak, that would be helpful in understanding your concern.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Thanks!</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><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:35 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="DE-CH" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Dear Jordan<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I wonder whether it is possible to objectively separate PDPs from other bylaw changes. How and who would be the arbiter
in these cases?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">PDPs may result in structural changes, which may affect other parts of the community. By giving the starting organization
a veto over the exercise of the community power, aren’t we privileging that organization?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">As far as I know when a PDP resulting in a bylaws change comes to the Board, there is no priviledged position for the
Board members coming from the starting organization. The Board just decides with the well-being of the organization and the global public interest in their mind, right?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Just some thoughts and sorry for chiming in so belatedly, but as you know there are many parallel tracks ongoing<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Regards<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Jorge
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Von:</span></b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>Im Auftrag von </b>Jordan Carter<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Dienstag, 17. November 2015 08:32<br>
<b>An:</b> Accountability Cross Community <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> [CCWG-ACCT] PDP interaction with bylaws veto - proposed approach<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div style="margin-bottom:8.25pt;overflow:visible">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Dear CCWG colleagues,</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt">PDP Interaction with Bylaws Veto</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">An example has been raised where policymaking and the bylaws veto power might clash. Here is the scenario:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt">The outcome of a PDP within an SO could mean that some consequential changes to the ICANN bylaws were needed to implement its recommendations.</span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt">PDP is core policy making and should not be subject to community veto.</span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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.</span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">This is a gap in our core proposal which can reasonably easily be closed.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Here is the simplest way to close the gap and ensure policy-making is protected from said veto:</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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.</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt">2: put a requirement in the Standard Bylaws veto process that for these two steps of the community escalation process:</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> -- decision to hold a community forum</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> -- decision to exercise the veto power</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt">the SO which has performed the PDP giving rise to the Bylaws change MUST express its SUPPORT for the exercise of the veto.</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">- 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><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">- 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><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">In other words, this does not leave the possibility of rogue "ICANN transformation by PDP" on the table.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Other options I considered were:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">- 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><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">- 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><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">- 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><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">cheers</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Jordan</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Jordan Carter</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">WP1 Rapporteur, CCWG</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Chief Executive <br>
<b>InternetNZ</b></span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><br>
<a href="tel:%2B64-4-495-2118" target="_blank">+64-4-495-2118</a> (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649" target="_blank">+64-21-442-649</a> (mob)<br>
Email: <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>
Skype: jordancarter</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Web: <a href="http://www.internetnz.nz/" target="_blank">www.internetnz.nz</a> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><br>
<i>A better world through a better Internet</i></span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#222222"><img border="0" src="https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/photos/me?at=AF6bupOucTjwCs9wZukdGAKPf5VnWtvbmQ&sz=100&pld=1"></span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Jordan Carter<br>
Chief Executive, InternetNZ<u></u><u></u></p>
<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><u></u><u></u></p>
<p>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity<u></u><u></u></p>
</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>