[WP1] Further comments

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All
This is the crucial question that I raised at the last CCWG which NEED s clear answer.
Without that the whole community power is no longer legally valid 
Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

> On 23 Nov 2015, at 07:39, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> 
> Page 10: "If fewer than 5 of ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees agree to participate...". The GAC is unlikely to say they will participate. Can we not count those who say no? Where is the modification on what to do if fewer than 5 AC/SO participate.  If there an absolute minimun that must "participate"?
> 
> Articles of incorporation; They are effectively equivalent in impact to the fundamental Bylaws. Shouldn't the approval level for both the Board and community be the same? 75% of entire Board. The entire board (or "all board members") must be explicit because it is different from almost all other board votes where it is a percentage of those present. The Annes uses the term "standing directors". I always thought the terms was "sitting directors"!
> 
> Page 22, 1-2 days for Community Forum to discuss Fundamental Bylaw change may be overkill. Suggest "potentially 1-2 days".
> 
> Page 23, Step 5, first bullet:
> 
> Page 49: The 2nd Draft Proposal stated it was incorporating the AoC into the Bylaws. This version just says it is incorporating the reviews. THIS IS A BIG DIFFERENCE. Has there been any change other than the title? The text at the bottom of page 50 implies no, and if so, the Recommendation 9 needs to be re-worded. I note that in Annex 9, the wording is correct.
> 
> In particular, the ALAC identified that a commitment to Consumer Trust was in the AoC (Section 3, not only in relation to a the new gTLD review) and this was missing in the 2nd draft proposal. It is still missing.
> 
> Annex 3 is still referring to the Sole Member related to the AoI on page 6.
> 
> Annex 4, page 16, Step 5 diagram: Type "NOMINATIONG"
> 
> Annex 4, Removal of entire Board. No details. Not yet drafted?
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 22/11/2015 12:53 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> I have a conflict with today's meeting, but here are a few comments. I will have more for the meeting on Monday.
>> 
>> Page 10, delineation of the Empowered Community. I think we need to mention here why the other two ACs are not listed (their own choice combined with the fact that they are technically appointed by the Board). Also, do we not need to say that the SSAC and RSSAC are members of the Empowered Community in their advisory role?
>> 
>> Page 10, item 1 at the bottom. The wording in the footnote below is more appropriate. "The entity will act as the sole designator, which has ....".  Saying it takes the form of the sole designator obfuscated the fact that it will also act on behalf of all 5 (or whatever) AC/SOs that weld power.
>> 
>> Page 14, if it is envisioned that the Community Forum would EVER be F2F, 15 days is not sufficient. If we keep 15 days, we need to make sure we are nowhere referring to it as F2F.
>> 
>> Page 14, step 5, bullet 1. For removal of directors, it is the sole designator the uses its powers. For the other powers, shouldn't it be the Empowered Community?
>> 
>> Page 16 and elsewhere, Articles of Incorporation changes also need approval of the Empowered Community (not just the Designators as could be implied from Steve's suggestion).
>> 
>> Page 25, procedures to ENSURE that the Interim Board will not be in ploace for more than 120 days. ENSURE is too strong a word. "with a target of ensuring" would be fine.
>> 
>> Alan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1