[bylaws-coord] Request for clarification by the CCWG

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Rosemary
Thank you very much for retrieving the issues
For the first issue, My preference is the Streamlined Option.)
For the second issue, unless proved necessary, I am in favour of not
applying escalation for mediation.
Regards
Kavouss

2016-04-14 20:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan via bylaws-coord <
bylaws-coord at icann.org>:

> Holly and Rosemary,
>
> Thank you for your cogent email.  I would support the Streamlined Option.
> One thing to clarify is the "automatic" nature of the Streamlined Option.
> Will the EC have the discretion to decide not to initiate mediation, or is
> mediation itself initiated automatically?  It appears to be the former
> (which I support), but ask for clarification.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Greg
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Rosemary E. Fei via bylaws-coord <
> bylaws-coord at icann.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear Bylaws Coordination Group:
>>
>>
>>
>> On the call this past Tuesday morning (Pacific time), Becky and I were
>> unable to recall the issue for CCWG consideration that was raised on one of
>> the slides.  We have now retrieved a more complete description of the
>> issue, regarding Section 4.1, on the process for initiating mediation as
>> the first step toward a Community IRP, and again request CCWG clarification.
>>
>>
>>
>> During the LA meeting, counsel identified that the process to initiate
>> mediation, if the Board fails to comply with an EC decision, was not
>> described in the Proposal.  Section 4.1 was introduced during the Bylaw
>> drafting stage at the request of the Bylaws Coordination Group to address
>> this, and describes a new escalation process, following all typical steps
>> (petition, community forum, etc.) in order for the EC to proceed to
>> mediation.  (This is the Current Draft Option.)
>>
>>
>>
>> An alternative that would be entirely consistent with the Proposal’s
>> silence, would be to mandate the EC Chairs Council to give notice to
>> initiate mediation automatically, in order to streamline the process,
>> eliminating any escalation to commence mediation, and then authorize the EC
>> Chairs Council to participate in the mediation in consultation with the
>> Decisional Participants following their internal processes.  (A full
>> escalation process would still be required after mediation, to initiate an
>> IRP.)  (This is the Streamlined Option.)
>>
>>
>>
>> CCWG counsel prefer the Streamlined Option, if it is acceptable to the
>> CCWG.  ICANN Legal has also agreed to it.
>>
>>
>>
>> We note that another issue on which the Proposal is silent and on which
>> counsel would like clarification, concerns the breadth of the special
>> SO/PDP rule (requiring the SO that was the source of a PDP to support
>> escalation to challenge that PDP).  CCWG has already confirmed that the
>> special rule should apply to Fundamental Bylaws changes, in addition to
>> Standard Bylaws changes as provided by the Proposal.  We would also like to
>> know if the special SO/PDP rule should be applied to initiating mediation,
>> or only to initiation of Community IRPs.  However, if the CCWG concludes on
>> the preceding issue that mediation will not require any escalation process
>> at all, this issue would be resolved as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> With kind regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Holly and Rosemary
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bylaws-coord mailing list
>> bylaws-coord at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bylaws-coord mailing list
> bylaws-coord at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bylaws-coord/attachments/20160414/a534c564/attachment.html>