[WP1] WP1 Work to Do - Now to July - Please Read
Steve DelBianco
sdelbianco at netchoice.org
Sat Jul 4 00:47:39 UTC 2015
Kavouss — I am always attentive to your notes of caution. But in the proposal to bring AoC Reviews into ICANN bylaws, there is no mention of voting thresholds.
Can you please clarify how your concerns relate to the AoC reviews?
Sincerely,
Steve
From: Kavouss Arasteh
Date: Friday, July 3, 2015 at 5:13 PM
To: Jordan Carter, Thomas Rickert, Mathieu Weill, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía, Steve DelBianco
Cc: "wp1 at icann.org<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>"
Subject: Re: [WP1] WP1 Work to Do - Now to July - Please Read
Dear All,
Dear Steve
In transferring AoC to Bylaws, we should be vaery careful to associate lower threshold 50% +1 to all functional and operational provisions ,in particular, the seat of ICANN should have the lowest threshold for modification.
There were considerable concerns if it would be associated with higher threshold
We should think of the rapid evolution and avoid rigidity.
Pls be carefull.
Regards
Kavouss
2015-07-03 9:32 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>:
Dear Jordan
Thank you very much for your guidelines
Among the issue you have mentioned that
quote
"Not on this list is the Model itself (empowered designators, empowered SO/AC) - my understanding is that the lawyers are being asked to develop material on this, and that it will be central to our meeting in Paris"
In this regard I wish to emphasize that the lawyers are not working for themselves they are responding to the community requirement as discussed, announced, emphasized and confirmed at BA
NO PUSH FOR ANY SPECIFIC MODEL.IS<http://MODEL.IS> EXPECTED FROM THEM.
In fact I do not clearly know what the task before them is
If they want to study the famous so-called «Hybrid Model" until the objectives of this model is not discussed at the level of CCWG and not WP1 it seems that study is premature.
Please be mindful of the costs involved
When I proposed a proper course of action and raised some basic questions I was not allowed to further explain the matter.
You told that my comments related to substance and not process.
Before we start process we need to discuss substance.
I am of the view that for Budget and Plan we do not need to go beyond asking reconsideration, except for budget for PTI that was requested by CWG to be put on rejection procedure
Please reconsider the matter before going further
If we drop these two, the empowerment of «Designators" or” SOs and ACs" becomes much simpler
We need to learn from what we have heard
I know that few people pushing for full member model .These people are the only persons actively contributing to WP1 thus they will override the comments received from community and views from the few others who also actively participating at WP1 but are in minority
We do not need to think of the worst cases .There is no perfection
IN any process there is a threshold of perfection .Never one can get 100% of perfection .That would be complex. expensive and un implementable
Lawyers receiving their orders from their Customer and not the reverse
There are other lawyers than those purely dealing with California Laws
Their advice MUST be totally consistent with and in complying with comments received and views expressed by the majority
AoC currently in force is the agreement between USG and ICANN .Not all of its provisions need to be retained or goes to Bylaws. Some of them are purely operational and need frequent changes to comply with the evolution of the Internet. They should be either put into separate document labelled " other operational and functional principles " or if they moved to Bylaws should have the lowest threshold ,i.e. "Simple Majority». An example of that is the SEAT OF ICANN.
We need to be mindful that not everybody wants a high threshold to modify the Seat.
Durations of the terms of the directors are another example.
Election procedure is the third examples.
Many of these provisions were written a decade ago
I said what should have been said by A PARTICIPANT
We need to reconsider the guidelines given above
Regards
Kavouss a Participant to CCWG
2015-07-03 1:38 GMT+02:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
Hi,
I always thought those guys had better sense than I do.
avri
On 02-Jul-15 18:46, Jordan Carter wrote:
> Thank you Avri
>
> A worrying silence beyond you!
>
> Keith D? Jonathan Z? Fiona? Others?
>
> best
> Jordan
>
>
> On 2 July 2015 at 15:38, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
> <mailto:avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 01-Jul-15 23:29, Jordan Carter wrote:
> > Affirmation of Commitments - inclusion of AOC reviews in bylaws
> > Affirmation of Commitments - other matters (what happens to AOC,
> etc)
>
> I am willing to work on this.
>
> Also some of the comments discussed the need to include more details
> that would not go into the bylaws themselves, e.g issues about how
> many
> people from which group. Is it enough to indicate the need to
> such work
> or does that work need to be , at least, sketched out?
>
> avri
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org<mailto:WP1 at icann.org> <mailto:WP1 at icann.org<mailto:WP1 at icann.org>>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649<tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> /A better world through a better Internet /
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org<mailto:WP1 at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
WP1 mailing list
WP1 at icann.org<mailto:WP1 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150704/eea7ce4e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the WP1
mailing list