[CWG-Stewardship] Input Needed: Bylaws Matrix Responses and Three Issues

[Grace Abuhamad]

Dear CWG-Stewardship and ICANN Implementation Team,

Please see attached the latest version of the responses to the Sidley Bylaws
Matrix as well as a list of three currently unresolved issues for
CWG-Stewardship input (also copied below for your convenience). The action
assigned on the CWG-Stewardship call today was to share these documents with
the group, and simultaneously with the ICANN implementation team for any
input they may have.

On the CWG-Stewardship call today, we outlined the three issues and had an
initial, but non-conclusive, discussion about them. On the thresholds issue,
Donna Austin suggests we go with current practices, i.e. simple majority,
since Charter amendments will go a public comment process prior to approval
by the ccNSO and GNSO. Paul Kane agrees.

Looking forward to your input,
Grace

A recap of the three issues presented on call (also in document attached):

There are three issues for the CWG-Stewardship to address:
 
Issue #1: Thresholds
 
For the CSC Charter, the CCNSO and GNSO Councils must approve amendments.
The DT leads noted that the intention is that the respective Councils (ccNSO
and GNSO) would vote to ratify any proposed charter amendment/s and the
threshold would be in accordance with their respective methods of operation.
However, the current responses further suggest that, ³supermajority of both
Councils would seem appropriate if this can be accommodated.²
 
Staff would like to note that supermajority may not be consistent with
current practice in the GNSO and CCNSO Councils. In the case of the GNSO,
the default voting threshold is simple majority of each house. Should a
supermajority vote be deemed appropriate for this purpose, the relevant
section in the ICANN bylaws that details voting thresholds that differ from
simple majority, would need to be updated.
 
Does the CWG want to define a higher threshold for the CCNSO and GNSO
councils or proceed with existing operating procedures within the Councils?
 
 
Issue #2: Timing of the first IANA Function Review
 
Paragraph (194) of the CWG Final Proposal provides that the IFR ³will not
commence² until two years after this date, but Paragraph (301) provides that
the initial IFR must be completed by this 2-year anniversary
 
Current response: Paragraph 301 being focused on the IFR while Paragraph 194
being a timetable makes Paragraph 301 the determining one. However,
Paragraphs 267/268 seem to confirm the ambiguity. Separately, Paragraph 194
does allow, however for a Special IFR sooner than 2 years if needed.
 
CWG needs to choose:
1.    The first IFR will not commence until two years after the Transition

2.    The first IFR will be completed by the 2-year anniversary of the
Transition

 
 
Issue #3: Use of the Empowered Community mechanisms for the Special IFR
 
The CWG needs to consider specifying a forum and process for the Special
IFR. Paragraphs (125) and (303) of the CWG Final Proposal provide that
consideration of whether to trigger a Special IFR ³may² include a public
comment period but is silent on who determines whether there should be a
public comment period.
 
If the CWG-Stewardship adopts the Empowered Community mechanism of the
CCWG-Accountability, then the process for escalation includes a discussion
forum. Would that be sufficient? If not, the CWG-Stewardship could mandate a
standard ICANN public comment period before triggering a Special IFR.
 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160225/198a0c95/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SidleyDraftBylaws_StaffAnalysis_23Feb.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 67767 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160225/198a0c95/SidleyDraftBylaws_StaffAnalysis_23Feb-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Brief for Chairs on Bylaws Issues.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 150964 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160225/198a0c95/BriefforChairsonBylawsIssues-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160225/198a0c95/smime-0001.p7s>