<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I agree with you completely
that it would either be a complete waste of time, or worse,
set us backwards by introducing new elements to take into
account in our already massive workplan. Is it possible to
assemble a review team and have them agree to declare it
premature, and give themselves another 5 years? Is it
possible to trust a RT to do that? And finally, if I
understand correctly, RTs come with travel support usually,
and this massive effort does not, may I say harrumph if this
is indeed correct?</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">cheers Stephanie</font></font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016-04-28 4:35, Alan Greenberg
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:37b5767d-c65c-428b-91bb-5c081580d227@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
As most of you are probably aware, the Affirmation of Commitments
(AoC)
WHOIS-RT was convened in late 2010, and according to the AoC, a
second
one should have been convened three years later in 2013 (or
depending on
how you interpret the wording, in mid-2015, three years after its
report
was issued. The Review has been postponed (several times I think)
by the
Board.<br>
<br>
The draft Bylaws that will likely soon be enacted shortly
following the
CCWG Accountability incorporate the AoC Reviews into the Bylaws
and set a
maximum of five years from the date a RT is convened until the
next one
must be convened. Under these revised rules, a second WHOIS-RT
(which
would be an RDS-RT) must have been convened in late 2015. So as
soon as
we enact the Bylaws, we will already be in violation and the Board
will
have no wriggle room but to convene a RT immediately.<br>
<br>
Given the work that is going on regarding RDS, it might be hard to
think
up a larger waste of community effort and ICANN staff and funding
than to
convene a RT on the subject now. At least that is my opinion.<br>
<br>
At this stage, the rules we are working under say that the Bylaws
should
reflect the exact approved recommendations of the CCWG. The issue
was
raised in yesterday's CCWG meeting and although the "official"
position is that we cannot make changes, there was some agreement
that we
really do not want to do anything really dumb (or at least dumber
than
some folks think this whole accountability effort is! ;-)
).<br>
<br>
The CCWG legal counsel is looking at how this issue may be
addressed, IF
it is to be addressed, and input would be useful. VERY QUICKLY.<br>
<br>
So I am bringing this to the attention of this WG, and raise a few
questions.<br>
<br>
1. Do you think it is reasonable to convene a RDS-RT in the next
few
months?<br>
<br>
2. If not, when should the next one be?<br>
<br>
There is an open Public Comment on the Bylaws -
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-new-bylaws-2016-04-21-en"
eudora="autourl">
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-new-bylaws-2016-04-21-en</a>.
In addition to answering the above questions quickly, please
submit a
comment if you think these Bylaws should not require an immediate
RDS-RT.
<br>
<br>
The Bylaw in question ca be found at
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-new-bylaws-20apr16-en.pdf"
eudora="autourl">
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-new-bylaws-20apr16-en.pdf</a>
, Page 33, Section 4.6(e)(v).<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>