[CWG-Stewardship] [CCWG-ACCT] [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version - SCWG

Sat Apr 9 16:44:24 UTC 2016

Dear Colleagues
We all were very busy and a small number  of very specifically oriented
influence the entire procedure by putting a sentence or phrase that, in the
absent of
consensus, the majority is prevails.
THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
By so doing the rest of the community would be captured by few influençai
constituency.
We MUST stick to the consensus and it is up to the chair or convener of the
group to seek that consensus.
We have discussed this issue at ICG in fall 2014 and produced a document
under " Consensus Building Process2
That served as a guide line during the ICG debate
Those proposed MAJORITY here proposed Full consensus ELSEWHERE
DOUBLE STANDARD  depending ON  WHICH DIRECTION  THEY WISH THAT THE WIND
BLOWS.
NO AND NO
This is unacceptable
Regards
Kavouss

2016-04-09 17:54 GMT+02:00 Christopher Wilkinson <
lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>:

> Well, Chuck, where I come out on this:
>
> 1. I agree that it should be harder.
>
> 2. The proposed voting structure of SCWG is so far biassed towards GNSO
> and the Registries, that the 'small group' could actually represent all the
> governments (one vote) and all the users (one vote). If the composition of
> the SCWG was balanced 50:50 then one might consider a simple majority of
> all the members, 50%+1. But as it stands in the proposal, well, NO.
>
> Best regards
>
> CW
>
>
>
>
> On 05 Apr 2016, at 21:32, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> I think there are two ways of looking at this:
> 1.       Requiring consensus makes it harder to do separation.  As
> Christopher says, that is a big step so maybe it should be harder.  That is
> in essence why I opposed only requiring a simple majority of those present
> in a meeting instead of a simple majority of all members whether they are
> in attendance or not.
> 2.       Requiring consensus also makes it easier for a small group to
> essentially veto a separation recommendation.  If a small group of the
> members oppose a separation while a strong majority favor it, simply by
> preventing consensus, separation could be stopped.
>
> I don’t know where I come out on this but I definitely we should weigh
> both points before deciding.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-
> stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Wilkinson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 05, 2016 2:41 PM
> *To:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org Accountability
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA
> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW
> ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version - SCWG
> *Importance:* High
>
> Good evening:
>
> With reference to the Sidley draft of April 2, 2016 ("Questions and
> Clarifications for Bylaws Coordination Group"), I wish to make a specific
> comment relating to Question 22 referring to Section 19 of the draft Bylaws
> concerning the SCWG ("Separation Cross Community Working Group".)
>
> Section 19.5 addresses the Composition of the SCWG and the voting rights
> of its members and liaisons.
>
> Section 19.7 (a) addresses the SCWG decision-making procedure.
>
> During the CWG conference call on April 4, Sidley raised the issue of how
> to define the majority of the SCWG (Section 19.7(a)) in the absence of a
> consensus.
> The bar of 50+1% was proposed. (Question 22.)
>
> *I submit that this bar is far too low, and that the general principle of
> consensus must be maintained.*
>
> Section 19.5 of the draft Bylaws provides for SCWG to be composed of 13
> voting members, 5 non voting liaisons and unlimited other participants.
> Among the voting members, GNSO and the ccTLDs would hold 9 votes; more than
> a majority of 7.
>
> However, eventual separation of the IANA/PTI function from ICANN would
> have far reaching implications for many stakeholders which go well beyond
> the specific interests of DNS Registries and Registrars.
>
> It would not be appropriate for the representatives of the Registries and
> Registrars to be able to determine a separation decision, acting alone,
> absent consensus in the SCWG. If the proposed composition and voting rights
> in an SCWG are maintained, it is absolutely essential that the SCWG act by
> consensus and not by a majority vote.
>
> Regards
>
> Christopher Wilkinson
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
> *From: *Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
> *Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April
> 2016 version*
> *Date: *3 Apr 2016 14:16:21 GMT+02:00
> *To: *CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> In anticipation of our calls this week, please find below a note from the
> lawyers group, the draft bylaws as well as an issue list.
>
> It is important to read the lawyers notes as they quite efficiently
> describe the context and status of the work. Please review them for any
> process related question.
>
> The purpose of our calls this week will be to address the issue list
> questions (questions 1-7 & 25-34 are for the CCWG, the others for CWG).
>
> Should any other issue be added to the list based on your respective
> reviews, please raise your questions on the list for transparency.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Mathieu
> ---------------
> Depuis mon mobile, d�sol� pour le style
>
>
> D�but du message transf�r� :
>
> *Exp**�**diteur:* John Jeffrey via bylaws-coord <bylaws-coord at icann.org>
> *Date:* 3 avril 2016 13:16:28 UTC+2
> *Destinataire:* bylaws-coord at icann.org
> *Cc:* "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan at sidley.com>, "Cc: Zagorin, Janet S." <
> jzagorin at sidley.com>, "Hilton, Tyler" <thilton at sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler <
> ICANN at adlercolvin.com>, "Hofheimer, Joshua T." <jhofheimer at sidley.com>,
> "Mohan, Vivek" <vivek.mohan at sidley.com>, "Clark, Michael A." <
> mclark at sidley.com>, "Boucher, Rick" <rboucher at sidley.com>, Sidley ICANN
> CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>, "Kerry, Cameron" <ckerry at sidley.com>,
> "McNicholas, Edward R." <emcnicholas at sidley.com>, Daniel Halloran <
> daniel.halloran at icann.org>, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org>,
> "Boelter, Jessica C.K." <jboelter at sidley.com>, "Fuller, Miles" <
> wfuller at sidley.com>, "Tam, Tennie H." <tennie.tam at sidley.com>
> *Objet:* *[bylaws-coord] DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS - 2 April 2016 version*
> *R**�**pondre **�**:* John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey at icann.org>
>
> Dear Bylaws Coordination Group,
>
> Please find attached a document � DRAFT NEW ICANN BYLAWS (vers. 2Apr) (�DRAFT
> BYLAWS�) for your review and discussion. As you will recall the last full
> draft was provided to you on 18 March, with the promise to provide another
> full turn of the DRAFT BYLAWS for your review today on 2 April.  The DRAFT
> BYLAWS attached is the current working draft among the legal drafting
> group.  There is also an Issue List attached, which are a set of additional
> questions and clarifications requested from the Bylaws Coordination Group.
>
>  We ask that you share the attachments with your CCWG, ICG and CWG
> colleagues who will be reviewing this during this critical work week
>
> *Recent Work* � During the past two weeks the legal drafting group, made
> up of Sidley�s team, Adler�s team and ICANN's Legal team reviewed and
> worked through mark ups and redrafts of the various sections of new ICANN
> Bylaws.  Also, we have held four separate meetings with the Bylaws
> Coordination Group during this two-week period asking questions and
> incorporating that feedback into the new draft.  There is likely to be the
> need for some additional discussions as we work toward a public comment
> version of the new ICANN bylaws.
>
> *More Work to Do* � There is still work to do on the DRAFT BYLAWS, in
> identifying and working through any remaining provisions in the draft that
> are not clear, finding any remaining open issues, improving the provisions,
> and polishing the draft before publication for public comment.  The legal
> teams remain engaged in review mode and are available for questions and
> comments during this period.
>
> *Legal Teams have not yet **�certified**�* � Since a) the Bylaws
> Coordination Group, CWG and CCWG have not yet reviewed and reacted to these
> DRAFT BYLAWS, b) there are still remaining open issues, and c) there is
> still review and polishing to be done by the legal teams � the legal
> teams have not indicated yet that the current DRAFT BYLAWS fully meets the
> recommendations within the Proposals.
>
> As we have indicated above there is still work to be done, including
> receiving the feedback from those reviewing these DRAFT BYLAWS this week
> before the legal teams will be in a position to certify the posting version
> for Public Comment
>
> *Next Steps* �
>
> 1)   *Now until 13 April* � members of CCWG, CWG, Bylaws Coordination
> Group, Board and ICG to complete review of these DRAFT BYLAWS and provide
> feedback to legal teams;
>
> 2)   *Now until 18 April*, (with particular focus during week of 13-18
> April) � legal teams to update DRAFT BYLAWS working in coordination with
> the Bylaws Drafting Group;
>
> 3)   *20 April* � posting date for public comment period for new proposed
> bylaws � with legal teams supporting that the new proposed bylaws meets
> the proposal recommendations.
>
> ���
>
> As before, we look forward to working with all of you in the coming days,
> to get ICANN�s Bylaws in the best form possible to effectuate these
> important changes.
>
> We hope these views of the documents are useful and that you receive them
> in the spirit that they are offered� to help all of us to be able to
> collaborate and work through these Bylaws changes in the most effective way
> possible � to enable the creation of a new and stronger, community
> empowered ICANN.
>
> John Jeffrey, Holly Gregory, and Rosemary Fei
>
> _____________________
> ____________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bylaws-coord mailing list
> bylaws-coord at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bylaws-coord
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160409/cc8438a1/attachment-0001.html>