[WP1] Frozen for PC2 Report - Community Powers - Standard Bylaws

Wed Jul 15 00:05:12 UTC 2015

Hi all

No comments were received and so this is the FROZEN document for standard
bylaws, for discussion in Paris

many thanks
Jordan

On 14 July 2015 at 17:35, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

> Dear Izumi
>
> Thank you for making these updates. I haven't noticed the change with the
> calendar days, so I have tracked that to follow the debate and the change
> Kavouss suggested.
>
> How does the attached version look to you / to all?
>
> We need comments by *20h UTC* in order to finalise (in about fifteen
> hours).
>
> bests
> Jordan
>
>
> On 14 July 2015 at 10:46, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please find attached the draft reflecting discussions at the WP1 call -
>> and let me know if there is anything I missed or failed to incorporate
>> accurately.
>>
>>
>> Two major changes:
>>
>>  1. Reverted addition on the last paragraph which had put cap on the
>> number of times to use this power
>>     i.e., back to the text of the first Public Comment
>>  2. Added option suggested by Kavouss for the period needed for community
>> input
>>     "15-30 calendar days"
>>
>>
>> Summary of the revised text and further dicussions:
>>
>> [Status of Proposed CCWG response/approach to resolution (Developed by
>> WP1)]
>>
>> Based on "WP1 Summaries by Question" from the Public Comments. No
>> specific comments on this area observed at ICANN53.
>>
>> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/First+Public+Comment+Review
>>
>> * CCWG will consider extending the community review period from 2 weeks
>> to a longer timeframe TBD
>>    --> "2 weeks" deleted but alternative TBD
>>
>> * CCWG will continue to explore and explain member structure
>>    --> Not reflected: needs to fix the model first
>>
>> * CCWG will consider lowering the vote threshold from 3/4 to 2/3
>>    --> Reflected
>>
>> * CCWG will consider mechanisms for limiting procedural impasse and
>> possible delays
>>    --> Not reflected: Needs discussions
>>
>> * CCWG will consider a cap on the number of times this power can be
>> utilized. Further clarification needed
>>    --> Not Reflected: Concerns expressed in WP1 on reflecting this
>>
>>
>> [Further Discussions]
>>
>> * CCWG will consider extending the community review period from 2 weeks
>> to a longer timeframe TBD
>>    - CCWG needs to agree on the alternative
>>    - Alternative options expressed from the public comment:
>>      a) 30 days
>>      b) 60 days
>>      c) 15-30 calendar days
>>      d) The end of the next ICANN meeting that begins no sooner than one
>> month after the Board posts notice of adoption
>>         Prior to such changes becoming effective
>>
>> * CCWG will continue to explore and explain member structure
>>    - Requested to explain how Member status can be created and maintained
>> without undue costs, complexity, or liability (325)
>>    - Needs an explanation once the mechanism is fixed
>>    - Need confirmation with lawyers on how to respond
>>
>> * CCWG will consider mechanisms for limiting procedural impasse and
>> possible delays
>>    - Needs to consider alternatives to two weeks, in balance with this
>> point
>>    - Needs to consider whether putting limites n the number of times for
>> this power to be ultilized is sufficient
>>
>> * CCWG will consider a cap on the number of times this power can be
>> utilized.
>>    - Was discussed at WP1 with concerns expressed on reflecting it
>>
>> * How to address comment (341)
>>    - Which requests to increase composition of SOs/ACs other than ccNSO
>> and GAC
>>    - Out of scope to consider it at a part of this work but needs to
>> consider how to respond
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Izumi
>>
>>
>> On 2015/07/13 13:16, Jordan Carter wrote:
>> > Hi all
>> >
>> > Please find attached some marked up text from Izumi, who has prepared us
>> > for our discussion on the community power of rejecting changes to the
>> > standard ICANN bylaws.
>> >
>> > The notes below from Izumi summarise what has changed, and highlight
>> some
>> > issues for discussion.
>> >
>> > This item is on our agenda for the 13 July call.
>> >
>> > best,
>> > Jordan
>> >
>> >
>> > Attached is how I have reflected the community feedback for 2nd Public
>> > Comment on Standard ByLaws changes.
>> >
>> > There were not many changes needed but a few points which needs the
>> CCWG to
>> > have further discussions.
>> > See [Further Discussions] for more details.
>> >
>> >
>> > *[Status of Proposed CCWG response/approach to resolution (Developed by
>> > WP1)]*
>> >
>> > Based on "WP1 Summaries by Question" from the Public Comments. No
>> specific
>> > comments on this area observed at ICANN53.
>> >
>> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/First+Public+Comment+Review
>> >
>> > * CCWG will consider extending the community review period from 2 weeks
>> to
>> > a longer timeframe TBD
>> >    --> "2 weeks" deleted but alternative TBD
>> >
>> > * CCWG will continue to explore and explain member structure
>> >    --> Not reflected: needs to fix the model first
>> >
>> > * CCWG will consider lowering the vote threshold from 3/4 to 2/3
>> >    --> Reflected
>> >
>> > * CCWG will consider mechanisms for limiting procedural impasse and
>> > possible delays
>> >    --> Not reflected: Needs discussions
>> >
>> > * CCWG will consider a cap on the number of times this power can be
>> > utilized. Further clarification needed
>> >    --> Reflected
>> >
>> >
>> > *[Further Discussions]*
>> >
>> > * CCWG will consider extending the community review period from 2 weeks
>> to
>> > a longer timeframe TBD
>> >    - CCWG needs to agree on the alternative
>> >    - Alternative options expressed from the public comment:
>> >      a) 30 days
>> >      b) 60 days
>> >      c) The end of the next ICANN meeting that begins no sooner than one
>> > month after the Board posts notice of adoption
>> >      d) Prior to such changes becoming effective
>> >
>> > * CCWG will continue to explore and explain member structure
>> >    - Requested to explain how Member status can be created and
>> maintained
>> > without undue costs, complexity, or liability (325)
>> >    - Needs an explanation once the mechanism is fixed
>> >    - Need confirmation with lawyers on how to respond
>> >
>> > * CCWG will consider mechanisms for limiting procedural impasse and
>> > possible delays
>> >    - Needs to consider alternatives to two weeks, in balance with this
>> point
>> >    - Needs to consider whether putting limits on the number of times for
>> > this power to be ultilized is sufficient
>> >
>> > * CCWG will consider a cap on the number of times this power can be
>> > utilized.
>> >    - Reflected but needs to confirm whether there are no concerns
>> >
>> > * How to address comment (341)
>> >    - Which requests to increase composition of SOs/ACs other than ccNSO
>> and
>> > GAC
>> >    - Out of scope to consider it at a part of this work but needs to
>> > consider how to respond
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150715/f8c30a34/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 201507_2nd Public Comment_Standard Bylaws_v2-Jordan.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 20752 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150715/f8c30a34/201507_2ndPublicComment_StandardBylaws_v2-Jordan-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 201507_2nd Public Comment_Standard Bylaws_v2-Jordan.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 42545 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150715/f8c30a34/201507_2ndPublicComment_StandardBylaws_v2-Jordan-0001.pdf>