[WP1] WP1 Work to Do - Now to July - Please Read

Sat Jul 4 07:40:03 UTC 2015

Dear Steve
Thank you very much fior your quick answer ,as usual, It is highly
appreciated
Perhaps there is some degree of misunderstanding
Please correct me ,if Iam wrong; as far as I understood, Baylaws  would
have two categories of provisions
One requiring 3/4 of threshold if the amendments made by the Board ( always
by 2/3 of voting threshold )  to be  rejected and if the amendments
initiated/ invoked by the community
Another requiring 2/3 of threshold if the amendments made by the Board (
always by 2/3 of voting threshold )  to be  rejected and if the amendments
initiated/ invoked by the community
Now revision of the SEAT of ICANN ,if invoked/ initiated by the
community,how it is forseen in the draft that you are preparing Under the
two assupmtion
A) SEAT of the ICANN   included in tjhe tradtional/ standard Bylaws
B) Seat of ICANN  included in tjhe  Fundamental / Golden ( irrespective
whether or not in califonia Laws such terms exists ) Bylaws
However, there was serious concerns about that topic in the sense that
people did not want to have a rigid arrangement to change the seat ,when
and if required
Can you clarify the matter please
Regards
Kavouss

2015-07-04 8:01 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:

> The goal of accommodating representatives of individual stakeholder groups
> and being as diverse as possible are laudable goals, which I support.
> However, the execution falls short, at least when it comes to the GNSO.
>
> Simply put, the GNSO has more than 5 separate, discrete and formally
> chartered stakeholder groups; it has 7.  Each of these groups operate
> separately and self-sufficiently, and each deserves a seat at the table.
> If any two or more of these groups chooses to be viewed as a combination
> and/or to operate primarily as a combined organization, and share a single
> seat, that should be their prerogative.  However, unless such a choice is
> made, the reality that these groups are separate must be honored.
>
> If this is not done, then the review team (or any other group that we are
> creating in this process) materially fails the goal of accommodating
> individual groups and being diverse.
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org
> > wrote:
>
>>   Avri and I recommend this text  on creation of review teams for AoC
>> reviews being brought into the bylaws.  We picked-up in the community
>> voting weights that will be used for AC/SOs exercising their “community
>> powers” here:
>>
>>  All reviews will be conducted by a volunteer community review team comprised
>> of representatives of the relevant Advisory Committees, Supporting
>> Organizations, and the chair of the ICANN Board.
>>
>>  Up to 5 volunteers are welcomed from each AC/SO, to accommodate representatives
>> of individual stakeholder groups.  If a review team conducts a consensus
>> call on its report and recommendations, voting will be equalized among
>> the participating AC/SOs.
>>
>>  The group must be as diverse as possible.
>>
>>
>>  Thoughts on that?
>>
>>   From: Jordan Carter
>> Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 11:29 PM
>> To: "wp1 at icann.org"
>> Subject: [WP1] WP1 Work to Do - Now to July - Please Read
>>
>>   Dear all
>>
>>  Thanks for the contributions on our work planning call for Work Party 1
>> today. *Please read this email carefully and add your thoughts. *
>>
>>  A separate note later today or early tomorrow will outline the WP1
>> meetings we need to have between now and 14 July.
>>
>>
>>  We have three pieces of work to do by the end of the month. They are
>> listed below, and then some detail fleshed out in the rest of this email,
>> along with the *call for volunteers...*
>>
>>  Three things need to be done:
>>
>>  *1. Prepare draft content for our Second Public Comment report, for
>> discussion at Paris & finalising by end month*
>>
>>  *2. Start the bylaws-preparation process, using the AOC reviews as a
>> test case*
>>
>>  *3. Prepare responses to all the public comments from PC1*
>>
>>
>>  *On 1:* the chunks of work we need to do are to prepare updated content
>> that takes account of:
>>
>>  - the feedback received in PC1
>> - the discussions with the community and in our group at Buenos Aires
>> - further analysis and refinement we make as WP1
>>
>>  This draft material should be done in time for the Paris meeting, and
>> so has to respect the document freeze on 14 July.
>>
>>  We need to do this for the following areas, and we need a Lead
>> Volunteer for each area:
>>
>>  Community Mechanism - balance of power / votes / influence
>> Community Mechanism - whether there is a Council, or just a vote counting
>> mechanism
>>
>>  Community Power - Budget/Strat Plan / Operating Plan
>> Community Power - Blocking ordinary bylaws changes
>> Community Power - Approving Fundamental Bylaws changes
>> Community Power - Removal of individual Directors
>> Community Power - Recall of the whole ICANN Board
>>
>>  Affirmation of Commitments - inclusion of AOC reviews in bylaws
>> Affirmation of Commitments - other matters (what happens to AOC, etc)
>>
>>
>>  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.
>>
>>
>>  *If there are areas of work omitted above, please raise them ASAP*.
>>
>>
>>  *:: Call for Volunteers ::*
>>
>>  If you would like to *volunteer* to lead any particular piece of work
>> for the above, *please do so ASAP* - by email to me, or to this email
>> list.
>>
>>  Ideally, there will be one volunteer for each of the lines above. I
>> have some people who have agreed to be "voluntold" - Avri and Matt Shears
>> are in this category. But for the start, free choice!
>>
>>  The task will be to be lead writer on a tracked changes version of the
>> PC1 content, showing what you propose to change for the Second report.
>>
>>  The approach asked is to:
>>
>>  a) analyse the public comments and the discussions in BA
>> b) propose draft text changes that take this into account
>>
>>  The example Steve delBianco circulated earlier today is a way to do it.
>>
>>
>>  Your drafting will lead to discussion of your proposed content in WP1.
>> We will do as much as we can to improve the drafts and get consensus, but
>> we will debate all the material through in Paris is my current knowledge.
>>
>>  On *item 2 - bylaws drafting - *Steve has started this process with the
>> AOC and we will discuss this content on our next WP1 call.
>>
>>  On *item 3 - public comments replies -* I propose that people take some
>> account of this as they do the drafting work, and be prepared to spend some
>> time on completing this task (responses to the comments we got in PC1)
>> *after* the Paris meeting.
>>
>>
>>  I look forward to your thoughts as to any gaps in the proposed work,
>> and to your volunteering excellence.
>>
>>
>>
>>  cheers
>> Jordan
>>
>>  --
>>   Jordan Carter
>>
>> Chief Executive
>> *InternetNZ*
>>
>> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
>> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>> Skype: jordancarter
>>
>> *A better world through a better Internet *
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WP1 mailing list
>> WP1 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> 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/20150704/85f4d4c0/attachment.html>