[Area 1] Petition Process

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Jordan,
Thank you very much for your kind reply.
First of all there a clear contradiction in what you described with which I
fully agree and the reply you did provide in the last WPè1 call in saying "
Kavous , there is n voting in the petition stage " Now you confirmed what
is described Under petition general introduction the each So or AC that
launches a petition first must agree on the petition by simple majority
.That is VOTING what you did not agree at the last CALL
sECOND ,THERE IS INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN VARIOUS PARTS OF CHATER 7 ( 7.1,
7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 ) WITH THAT REFERRED TO IN 368.
Regards
Kavouss

2015-10-12 1:51 GMT+02:00 Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>:

> hi Kavouss, all:
>
> Let me try and be clear - I don't think there is a contradiction here, but
> let's see what you think.
>
> The petition step is an SO or AC choosing to trigger the use of a power.
> If the petition happens, then there is the community discussion in the
> Forum, and then the right for everyone to vote (or express a consensus
> view, if we change to that) on whether the power is used.
>
> There has to be some way to "start the process". The petition step is the
> start.
>
> To create a petition, an SO or AC would have to decide to do it. That's
> the voting you quote - the "simple majority" - the idea was each SO or AC
> follows its usual process, not a supermajority one.
>
> Once the SO or AC decides and if it decides to do the petition, then the
> petition is lodged and the whole SO/AC community is told "A petition has
> been received from ____ SO, and so the question of using the community
> power is now asked."
>
> Then the discussion phase.
>
> After that, the decision phase, when all the participating SOs or ACs
> decide whether or not the power should be used. That could be voting, or
> the new community consensus approach we are discussing.
>
>
> I don't see any contradiction here. What do you think, Kavouss, all?
>
> cheers
> Jordan
>
>
>
> On 12 October 2015 at 03:21, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Co-Chairs
>>
>> As I did mention at several occasions there number of inconsistencies
>> between various part of the second Draft Proposals some of which I raised
>> and some others I did ask to be checked by the authors of these parts.
>>
>> One of these inconsistencies are the petition process,
>>
>> 368 stipulate that
>>
>> Quote
>>
>> "*To trigger community consideration for the use of a community power,
>> an SO or AC has to agree by a resolution of its governing Body that the
>> power should be used - the threshold to agree the resolution is a simple
>> majority" *( means voting ,emphasis is added )
>>
>> Unquote
>>
>> At the last WP1 I raised the same question, but Jordan replied that
>>
>> At the level of potion no voting is required ?
>>
>> What is wrong and what is right?
>>
>> Is the statement in paragraph 368 as quoted above is correct? Or if the
>> explanation by Jordan is correct?
>> Moreover sub-section 7.3 and 7.4 do not make any clear reference in which
>> the petition is carried out whereas sun-section 7.3 and 7.4 referred to
>> that process.
>>
>> In addition to that , in regard with Fundamental Bylaws the situation is
>> not clearly mention in regard with initiation of petition in each SO and or
>> AC?
>>
>> Consequently, there is a need to closely look at the issue and other
>> inconsistencies which may exist,
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Kavouss
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
> Web: www.internetnz.nz
>
> *A better world through a better Internet *
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability1/attachments/20151012/2489ce64/attachment.html>