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

Mon Feb 29 22:46:22 UTC 2016

Thank you Martin and Cheryl. Is there any additional feedback? We would like
to finalize this by the end of the week.

Summary of feedback so far:

Issue #1 Thresholds: Move forward with current practices, i.e. simple
majority, since CSC Charter amendments will go a public comment process
prior to approval by the ccNSO and GNSO.
* Support: Donna, Paul, Cheryl, Martin
* No objections 
Issue #2 Timing of 1st IFR: Martin suggested the following compromise text:
"will commence not later than two years after the Transition”

* Support: Martin, Cheryl
* No objections 
Issue #3 Use of the Empowered Community mechanisms for the Special IFR:
There is support for using the community mechanisms, but in order to provide
flexibility in the Bylaws, and for the Special IFR process, Martin
suggested: 
" ...
allow the RySG and/or ccNSO to launch a consultation process leading to a
review 
...
 "

* Support: Martin, Cheryl
* No objections 

Please send your feedback as soon as possible on list so that we can pass
the responses to Sidley and proceed with the work plan.

Thank you, 
Grace

From:  Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com>
Date:  Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:10 PM
To:  Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
Cc:  "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>, Nathalie
Vergnolle <nathalie.vergnolle at icann.org>, Akram Atallah
<akram.atallah at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Input Needed: Bylaws Matrix Responses and
Three Issues

Grace thank you for this... Sorry for a slight delay in reply, please see my
responses inter-spaces below... <CLO>

Cheryl Langdon-Orr ...  (CLO)

about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
  <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>

On 26 February 2016 at 04:41, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
wrote:
> 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, “supermajority of both Councils
> would seem appropriate if this can be accommodated.”
>  
> 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?

<CLO> 
 I  would suggest going with the existing OP's within the Councils...

>  
>  
> Issue #2: Timing of the first IANA Function Review
>  
> Paragraph (194) of the CWG Final Proposal provides that the IFR “will not
> commence” 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

<CLO> 
 I rather like the text proposed by Martin =>

“will commence not later than two years after 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 “may” 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.

<CLO> 
 In my view it would be best for most circumstances ( and provide a higher
degree of understanding  and predictability within the wider ICANN Community
if the CWG-Stewardship adopts the Empowered Community Mechanism of the
CCWG-Accountability, but again I am rather leaning towards also picking up
in the flexibility allowed by Martin's proposed text =>

" ...
allow the RySG and/or ccNSO to launch a consultation process leading to a
review 
...
"

>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160229/a6b6929c/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/20160229/a6b6929c/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/20160229/a6b6929c/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/20160229/a6b6929c/smime-0001.p7s>