<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
As I am addressed directly, I will attempt to respond<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span lang="EN-US">What is that magic term
"community» covers?</span></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span lang="EN-US">Does it includes or
embrace the entire multistakeholders?</span></blockquote>
<br>
I do not believe it is a magic term, but rather the focus of our
concern - we participate in efforts such as this to our best ability
for the interests of the global stakeholder community to the best
of our understanding. In this case, when I use the term, I use it
to refer to all of ICANN's stakeholders. For me that includes
primarily those who are involved in ICANN's various Advisory
committees and Supporting Organizations (ACSO) representing various
stakeholder groupings. But it also includes those to whom we are
constantly making outreach and to those who take the time and effort
to respond with comments to the various request for comments that
ICANN publishes. One of the interesting attributes of ICANN that I
have noticed though, is that it takes very little for an 'outsider'
who gets involved in an ICANN, to become an 'insider' who
contributes as much as she likes.<br>
<br>
So when I say that ICANN must be accountable to its community, that
it what I mean.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p><span lang="EN-US">As it was discussed at several occasion,
there is a defacto agreement
that ,generally speaking multistakeholder composed of</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Civil Society</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Private Sector,</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Technical Community including academics</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Governments </span></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
I, for one, do not believe the government determined breakdown of
stakeholders in the Tunis Agenda (TA) needs to be the guiding
stakeholder definition for ICANN or a de facto definition for the
Internet - though it is a convenient way of grouping in some cases.
Certainly all of these TA categories of stakeholder can be found
among the ICANN community, but the ACSO are not subdivided in the
way that the Tunis Agenda, as mandated unilaterally by a group of
nation states, groups them. While that is the division seems to be
the one we must use in any intergovernmental attempt at a
multistakeholder organization, it is by no means the only way that
stakeholders can be defined in a multistakeholder entity in the
Internet ecosystem.<br>
<br>
It is also important to understand that while ICANN is a
multistakeholder organization in its own construction, it is but one
stakeholder in the larger Internet ecosystem.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p><span lang="EN-US">Do we treat the comments with equal footing.
I know that your are
defending the equal rights of the constituency</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">In CSTD you
defended that equality of rights for more than 2 hours and
finally succeeded to
win</span></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
I am not aware that I ever prevailed in any discussion in CSTD,
afier all I was just a civil society participant in an
intergovernmental system. Any temporary advantage that may have been
gained due to my multi-houred discussions in the WG on Enhanced
Cooperation (WGEC) meetings evaporated immediately once the
intergovernmental member states got together at the CSTD to make
their decisions. <br>
<br>
As for me personally, and as one who strongly supports the ATRT
process as one basis for ICANN accountability, yes, I argue for
equal footing in all discussions and considerations as the way to
find broad consensus. And while I accept that the full
multistakeholder complement is not always the decision maker*, I
always believe that those who make decisions are accountable to the
full community of stakeholders. And while I sometimes agree it is
wise to give greater value to the comments of established groupings
than to those of individuals, what I think counts most is the
usefulness of the ideas and the contribution they make to enhancing
the accountability of ICANN. If an individual were to have offered
an answer to our quest that all could accept, what would it matter
who it came from or that it came from an individual who belonged to
stakeholder group A, B and/or C.<br>
<br>
As for the representative nature of the CCWG, all of the stakeholder
groupings and any interested individual has the opportunity to
represent their group, themselves, and/or the best interests of the
Internet as they understand it from their perspective, in this
effort.<br>
<br>
thanks<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
* in this case for better or worse the deciders are the Board for
the bylaws changes and ultimately NTIA for the 2 track solution.
Though both remain accountable to the global Internet community, of
which we are a voice.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02-Jan-15 14:20, Kavouss Arasteh
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACNR4-LUB5-THHSSc_+MpVe1-Bwn59jf2j3=Fx6KrVoQ_+uYiw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear Avri,</div>
<div>Dear All.
<p><span lang="EN-US">Thank you very much for your comments</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">I have one question which continued to
bother me as everyone refers to «community"</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">What is that magic term "community»
covers?</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Does it includes or embrace the entire
multistakeholders?</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">As it was discussed at several occasion,
there is a defacto agreement
that ,generally speaking multistakeholder composed of</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Civil Society</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Private Sector,</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Technical Community including academics</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Governments </span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">In your views and the views other those
who repeatedly refer to
"Community" do they mean; Global Multistakeholer" as
described
above.</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">If that is the case how the "
community" fits in
that overall description.</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">When there are comments received from
«community" have we checked
whether all four categories of multistakeholder have
commented?</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Do we treat the comments with equal
footing. I know that your are
defending the equal rights of the constituency</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">In CSTD you
defended that equality of rights for more than 2 hours and
finally succeeded to
win</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">How we decide
whether comments from a limited number of people ( mostly
those who comments on
everything are representing which of those four categories
of community</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">How we have
taken into account whether the number of comments is
representative of the
entire multistakeholder .</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">I give you an
example, for the issue of ICANN accountability at one
point of time ICANN
mentioned based on 17 comments it modified the approach
previously submitted.</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Did we
checked whether all four categories of Multistakeholder
commented ?</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Have we
checked whether any Government commented or as they are
frustrated they did
not?<br>
What footing criteria were used to conclude on the
representativeness of the comments?</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Did we
consider comment made on behalf on a big community with
equal footing with
comments received from an individual who spoke on behalf
of herself or himself?</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">We need to be
careful when we refer to the term “ community”</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Until the
time that the constituents of Global Multistakeholder
Community is not clearly
specified and their footing are not agreed ,it is
difficult to associate any
serious value to the comment received from a limited
number of permanent
commenting people which may not representing the community
as such.</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US"><span> Best Regards</span></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US"><span>Your friend</span></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US"><span>Kavouss </span><span> </span></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2015-01-02 16:42 GMT+01:00 Paul
Rosenzweig <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Dear Kavouss</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I reply to you privately
simply because I think we have pretty much exhausted
our friends on the listserve. I found your answer
fascinating. And I think, in the end, the
difference lies in the perspectives of our different
worlds. Where I work (here in Washington DC) if I
am going to have a fight with someone, it is often
beneficial to create a public perception that I am
being reasonable and the other fellow is the one who
is being unreasonable – and having the Board say
“no” to my question would help me in that regard. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Best wishes</span></p>
<span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Paul</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>**NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS
-- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>509 C St. NE</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Washington, DC 20002</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Paul Rosenzweig</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank"><span>paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>O: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660"
target="_blank" value="+12025470660">+1 (202)
547-0660</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>M: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650"
target="_blank" value="+12023299650">+1 (202)
329-9650</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Skype: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739"
target="_blank" value="+12027381739">+1 (202)
738-1739</a> or paul.rosenzweig1066</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9"
target="_blank"><span>Link to my PGP Key</span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span>
Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com"
target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 2, 2015 9:10 AM</span></p>
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<b>To:</b> Paul Rosenzweig<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Seun Ojedeji; <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding
how bylaw changes are made</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p><span>Dear Paul,</span></p>
<p><span>Dear All</span></p>
<p><span>I am coming back to reply to your kind
responses on which we have major agreement
on the substance but different views on the
approaches.</span></p>
<p><span>Let me just clarify my points that I
raised many times and no answer was give.</span></p>
<p><span>Currently, there is constitutional and
legal mechanism for ICANN accountability </span></p>
<p><span>On the other hand, there are some sort
of optional accountability ( in form of ATRT
Recommendations and comments received from a
limited number of people ( Public Comments )
</span></p>
<p><span>However, there is no mechanism at all
to verify whether the responsibilities
entrusted to the Board have been properly
held or implemented.</span></p>
<p><span>Moreover, there are not any
constitutional (legally adopted) by
stakeholder accountability terms and
conditions.</span></p>
<p><span>We have bylaws crafted by board and
under the Board authority to modify and or
update</span></p>
<p><span>In my view having more than 40 years of
constitutional experience the Board is no
more than an executive entity </span></p>
<p><span>What they execute is AoC and Bylaws
.The first one is designed to meet the NTIA
requirement .The second one is a
quasi-unilateral provisions crafted by Board
and commented by a limited number of people
( public ) without knowing that whether or
not that limited number of people commented
represents the entire multistakeholders (
Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical
Community including Academics and last but
not leased Governments ) </span></p>
<p><span>There is no separation of authority
between those who establish policy/
Multistakeholders or their legally
designated or elected representatives with
appropriate footing and those who implement
policies ( ICANN) and in particular the
policy itself ( modified version of AoC plus
modified Bylaws ) Every thing is mixed.</span></p>
<p><span>Currently ICANN is at least is
responsible to NTIA for certain actions and
responsible to UNKNOWN Public for certain
other actions .Once the transition is done
the entire responsibilities goes to that
UNKNOWN Public without having any authority
to scrutinize actions implemented and no
authority to sanction those who did not
implement the established policy</span></p>
<p><span>Now CCWG is making every effort to
clarify the situation .We are at the
beginning of the process. In my view, that
takes many months if not many years to do so
.</span></p>
<p><span>Now you and those supporting your
approach consider that we need to ask the
Board in an upfront approach what they
believe implementable and what believe Un/
Non implementable </span></p>
<p><span>Allow me dear Paul to describe the
scenarios.</span></p>
<p><span>We would wish to ask an entity whether
or not that entity agrees that we a) limit
its authority) designating or establishing a
mechanism for overnighting their action and
c) implement sanctions if they have not or
will not perform their duties as prescribed
by the Policy Terms and condition </span></p>
<p><span>Now I am asking this simple question </span></p>
<p><span>Do you know any one or any entity wants
that a) ,b) and C) individually and or/
collectively be implemented in her or his
regard?</span></p>
<p><span>In this world that we are living no one
wants to be limited in authority nor being
held more responsible than she or he is
currently responsible and more importantly
no one which is not under any sanctioning
rules to be under that rules</span></p>
<p><span>If the answer is yes, then we should
not raise any question to them at all.</span></p>
<p><span>Moreover, does the legislating
authority ask the executing authority which
kind of authority sphere or responsibility
domain it wishes to perform its function?</span></p>
<p><span>The answer is no</span></p>
<p><span>The legislator establishes the laws and
rules and the executing entity MUST
implement that Law or Rule.</span></p>
<p><span>However, in devising those laws and
Rules there is continuing dialogues between
the two CCWG and ICANN Board.</span></p>
<p><span>In summary, in view of the above, we
should not raise any such questions to the
Board but continue to exchange views between
the Board and CCWG ,as appropriate </span></p>
<p><span>Kavouss </span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2015-01-02 9:52 GMT+01:00
Kavouss Arasteh <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com"
target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>:</p>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Paul,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you very much
in deed to kindly answering my question.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes it helps ( your
clarification) .</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I will revert to you
in few hours</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks again for your
kind answer and analysis</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kavouss</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone</p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
On 2 Jan 2015, at 00:08, Paul
Rosenzweig <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Dear
Kavouss</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Thank
you for this question which is
a very sensible one. Let me
try to clarify what I am
trying to accomplish by my
proposal.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I am a
complete and firm support of
Board accountability to the
Community. That is 100% clear
and I think you and I are in
firm agreement on that.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I may,
however, not be clear about my
method and process. From my
perspective the strongest
accountability would be with a
clear Bylaw limitation on
ICANN functionality and a
provision for an outside
arbiter. Both of those
changes would require Board
approval. I am not trying to
subordinate the CCWG to the
Board. Far from it – what I
am trying to do is find out as
early in the process whether
the Board is going to be
willing to agree to
subordinate itself to the
Community through those
mechanisms. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>So, I
think the place where you may
misunderstand me is at the
very end of your note – where
you say “why you want to limit
CCWG to just follow those
areas of accountability that
Board wishes?” I think you
are assuming that if the Board
said “no” to the questions I
was asking that my reaction
would be to say “oh … oh
well. That is OK. If the
Board won’t agree, we can’t do
it.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>My real
reaction, in practice, would
be exactly the opposite – I
would urge the Community to
dig in for an extended
discussion with the Board and
use my limited powers of
persuasion to rally the
community to demand that the
Board changed its mind. </span><span>J</span><span>
And I would probably urge CCWG
to recommend those same things
anyway – but at least we would
do that knowing what was going
to happen.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Does
that help?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Regards</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Paul</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>**NOTE:
OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE
12/15/14 ***</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>509 C
St. NE</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Washington,
DC 20002</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Paul
Rosenzweig</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank"><span>paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>O: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660"
target="_blank">+1 (202)
547-0660</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>M: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650"
target="_blank">+1 (202)
329-9650</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Skype:
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739"
target="_blank">+1 (202)
738-1739</a> or
paul.rosenzweig1066</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9"
target="_blank"><span>Link
to my PGP Key</span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span>
Kavouss Arasteh [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com"
target="_blank">mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January
1, 2015 4:39 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Paul Rosenzweig<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Seun Ojedeji; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re:
[CCWG-Accountability]
Regarding how bylaw changes
are made</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear
Paul,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The way
you commenting on the matter
could have two different
interprétations or leave two
different impressions:</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">A) You
are a firm supporter of
accountabilty process when
we note your comments about
Mathieu</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">B) You
wish to raise the question
Under discussion to the
Board asking what they wish
to see from CCWG and what
they do not see from CCWG
.The latter interpretation
,in my view, seems to be
subordinating CCWG to the
Board in the sense that we
just study, elaborate and
recoomend those area of
accountability that Board is
comfortable with but not
CCWG address the full
picture, objectives,
requiremnets of
accountability.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Pls find
a coherence between
interpretation A) and
interpretation B) .In order
words if you are really in
favour of addressing the
accountability in a
fullflege scope why you want
to limit CCWG to just follow
those areas of
accountability that Board
wishes?<br>
Thank you very much to
clarify your position.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best
Regards</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kavouss </p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2015-01-01
21:35 GMT+01:00 Paul
Rosenzweig <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>:</p>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Bruce
is a wonderful man.
But we don’t need
his opinion, we need
a formal commitment
from the Board.
That’s why we need
to ask the question
in an official
manner. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Indeed,
I would posit that
if the
accountability
working group tasked
with ensuring
accountability by
ICANN is reluctant
to even ask the
Board a question
then the communities
capacity to actually
reign in Board
excess when/if it
perceives such would
be very limited. If
we are so unwilling
to even ask a
question, will we be
willing to tell the
Board “no.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>In
any event, if we
choose not to ask
this question, then
the scope of WS1 has
just expanded to
essentially include
almost all oversight
mechanisms we might
conceivably want –
which would, I
think, be the wrong
result.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Warm
regards</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Paul</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>**NOTE:
OUR NEW ADDRESS
-- EFFECTIVE
12/15/14 ***</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>509
C St. NE</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Washington,
DC 20002</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Paul
Rosenzweig</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank"><span>paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>O:
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" target="_blank">+1 (202) 547-0660</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>M:
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" target="_blank">+1 (202) 329-9650</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Skype:
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" target="_blank">+1 (202) 738-1739</a>
or
paul.rosenzweig1066</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9"
target="_blank"><span>Link
to my PGP Key</span></a></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span>
Kavouss Arasteh
[mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b>
Thursday,
January 1, 2015
10:09 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Seun
Ojedeji<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b>
Re:
[CCWG-Accountability]
Regarding how
bylaw changes
are made</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Dear
All </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">I
agree to the
term that no one
should dictate
the CCWG.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Still
why there is a
need that we
raise any such
question to the
Board,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> Bruce
is quite active
and requested to
continue the
Liaison</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Kavouss</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> <br>
<br>
Sent from my
iPhone</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><br>
On 1 Jan 2015,
at 15:28, Seun
Ojedeji <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p>Hi Bruce,</p>
<p>Thanks for
this
information, I
will then
suggest that
this WG
determine if
those steps
will indeed be
appropriate
for us
especially
since WS1 is
more of a
perquisite to
transition.
One would
expect some
adjustments on
timing and
wording rights
to be made in
the process,
also board
voting rights
in this
particular
process may
need to be
agreed upon.
It will not be
encouraging to
have
implementation
stopped on the
basis of no
2/3 board
majority....time
utilization is
an important
factor in all
these. So the
earlier we
involve board
(without
having them
dictate for
us) the
better.</p>
<p>Regards<br>
sent from
Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse
brevity and
typos.</p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">On
1 Jan 2015
04:55, "Bruce
Tonkin" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au"
target="_blank">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>>
wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Hello
Seun,<br>
<br>
>> I
think writing
to board to
know how it
will treat the
WG outcome
especially
when some of
it's
implementations
will require
by-law
modifications
that further
involve the
ICANN
community in
decision
making process
may be useful.<br>
<br>
In terms of
the process
for making
bylaws
changes,
changes have
previously
been made to
accommodate
recommendations
from the
review teams
associated
with the work
of the
Accountability
and
Transparency
Review Teams
(ATRT) <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/atrt-2012-02-25-en"
target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/atrt-2012-02-25-en</a>
.<br>
<br>
Any archive of
all previous
versions of
the bylaws is
available
here:<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/archive-bc-2012-02-25-en"
target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/archive-bc-2012-02-25-en</a><br>
<br>
Based on our
current
practice I
would expect
the process to
be as follows:<br>
<br>
- Board
accepts
recommendations
from the CCWG<br>
<br>
- General
Counsel's
office
prepares
specific text
to change in
the bylaws<br>
<br>
- proposed
bylaws changes
are put out
for public
comment (45
days)<br>
<br>
- Board then
votes on the
bylaws
amendments -
a 2/3 majority
of the Board
is required to
make a bylaw
change<br>
<br>
If there is
significant
community
comments
against the
proposed
bylaws
language -
then a new
draft of the
bylaws would
be put out for
public comment
that is
consistent
with the
recommendations
from the CCWG.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bruce Tonkin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Ccwg-accountability2 mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org">Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability2">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability2</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>