<div dir="ltr">Hi all<div><br></div><div>No comments were received and so this is the FROZEN document for standard bylaws, for discussion in Paris</div><div><br></div><div>many thanks</div><div>Jordan</div><div><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 14 July 2015 at 17:35, Jordan Carter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Dear Izumi<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>How does the attached version look to you / to all?</div><div><br></div><div>We need comments by <b>20h UTC</b> in order to finalise (in about fifteen hours).</div><div><br></div><div>bests</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div></font></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="h5"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 14 July 2015 at 10:46, Izumi Okutani <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp" target="_blank">izumi@nic.ad.jp</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi all,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
Two major changes:<br>
<br>
1. Reverted addition on the last paragraph which had put cap on the number of times to use this power<br>
i.e., back to the text of the first Public Comment<br>
2. Added option suggested by Kavouss for the period needed for community input<br>
"15-30 calendar days"<br>
<br>
<br>
Summary of the revised text and further dicussions:<br>
<span><br>
[Status of Proposed CCWG response/approach to resolution (Developed by WP1)]<br>
<br>
Based on "WP1 Summaries by Question" from the Public Comments. No specific comments on this area observed at ICANN53.<br>
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/First+Public+Comment+Review" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/First+Public+Comment+Review</a><br>
<br>
* CCWG will consider extending the community review period from 2 weeks to a longer timeframe TBD<br>
--> "2 weeks" deleted but alternative TBD<br>
<br>
* CCWG will continue to explore and explain member structure<br>
--> Not reflected: needs to fix the model first<br>
<br>
* CCWG will consider lowering the vote threshold from 3/4 to 2/3<br>
--> Reflected<br>
<br>
* CCWG will consider mechanisms for limiting procedural impasse and possible delays<br>
--> Not reflected: Needs discussions<br>
<br>
* CCWG will consider a cap on the number of times this power can be utilized. Further clarification needed<br>
</span> --> Not Reflected: Concerns expressed in WP1 on reflecting this<br>
<span><br>
<br>
[Further Discussions]<br>
<br>
* CCWG will consider extending the community review period from 2 weeks to a longer timeframe TBD<br>
- CCWG needs to agree on the alternative<br>
- Alternative options expressed from the public comment:<br>
a) 30 days<br>
b) 60 days<br>
</span> c) 15-30 calendar days<br>
<span> d) The end of the next ICANN meeting that begins no sooner than one month after the Board posts notice of adoption<br>
</span><span> Prior to such changes becoming effective<br>
<br>
* CCWG will continue to explore and explain member structure<br>
- Requested to explain how Member status can be created and maintained without undue costs, complexity, or liability (325)<br>
- Needs an explanation once the mechanism is fixed<br>
- Need confirmation with lawyers on how to respond<br>
<br>
* CCWG will consider mechanisms for limiting procedural impasse and possible delays<br>
- Needs to consider alternatives to two weeks, in balance with this point<br>
</span> - Needs to consider whether putting limites n the number of times for this power to be ultilized is sufficient<br>
<span><br>
* CCWG will consider a cap on the number of times this power can be utilized.<br>
</span> - Was discussed at WP1 with concerns expressed on reflecting it<br>
<span><br>
* How to address comment (341)<br>
- Which requests to increase composition of SOs/ACs other than ccNSO and GAC<br>
- Out of scope to consider it at a part of this work but needs to consider how to respond<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>Regards,<br>
Izumi<br>
<span><br>
<br>
On 2015/07/13 13:16, Jordan Carter wrote:<br>
> Hi all<br>
><br>
> Please find attached some marked up text from Izumi, who has prepared us<br>
> for our discussion on the community power of rejecting changes to the<br>
> standard ICANN bylaws.<br>
><br>
> The notes below from Izumi summarise what has changed, and highlight some<br>
> issues for discussion.<br>
><br>
> This item is on our agenda for the 13 July call.<br>
><br>
> best,<br>
> Jordan<br>
><br>
><br>
> Attached is how I have reflected the community feedback for 2nd Public<br>
> Comment on Standard ByLaws changes.<br>
><br>
> There were not many changes needed but a few points which needs the CCWG to<br>
> have further discussions.<br>
> See [Further Discussions] for more details.<br>
><br>
><br>
</span>> *[Status of Proposed CCWG response/approach to resolution (Developed by<br>
> WP1)]*<br>
<span>><br>
> Based on "WP1 Summaries by Question" from the Public Comments. No specific<br>
> comments on this area observed at ICANN53.<br>
> <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/First+Public+Comment+Review" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/First+Public+Comment+Review</a><br>
><br>
> * CCWG will consider extending the community review period from 2 weeks to<br>
> a longer timeframe TBD<br>
> --> "2 weeks" deleted but alternative TBD<br>
><br>
> * CCWG will continue to explore and explain member structure<br>
> --> Not reflected: needs to fix the model first<br>
><br>
> * CCWG will consider lowering the vote threshold from 3/4 to 2/3<br>
> --> Reflected<br>
><br>
> * CCWG will consider mechanisms for limiting procedural impasse and<br>
> possible delays<br>
> --> Not reflected: Needs discussions<br>
><br>
> * CCWG will consider a cap on the number of times this power can be<br>
> utilized. Further clarification needed<br>
> --> Reflected<br>
><br>
><br>
</span>> *[Further Discussions]*<br>
<div><div>><br>
> * CCWG will consider extending the community review period from 2 weeks to<br>
> a longer timeframe TBD<br>
> - CCWG needs to agree on the alternative<br>
> - Alternative options expressed from the public comment:<br>
> a) 30 days<br>
> b) 60 days<br>
> c) The end of the next ICANN meeting that begins no sooner than one<br>
> month after the Board posts notice of adoption<br>
> d) Prior to such changes becoming effective<br>
><br>
> * CCWG will continue to explore and explain member structure<br>
> - Requested to explain how Member status can be created and maintained<br>
> without undue costs, complexity, or liability (325)<br>
> - Needs an explanation once the mechanism is fixed<br>
> - Need confirmation with lawyers on how to respond<br>
><br>
> * CCWG will consider mechanisms for limiting procedural impasse and<br>
> possible delays<br>
> - Needs to consider alternatives to two weeks, in balance with this point<br>
> - Needs to consider whether putting limits on the number of times for<br>
> this power to be ultilized is sufficient<br>
><br>
> * CCWG will consider a cap on the number of times this power can be<br>
> utilized.<br>
> - Reflected but needs to confirm whether there are no concerns<br>
><br>
> * How to address comment (341)<br>
> - Which requests to increase composition of SOs/ACs other than ccNSO and<br>
> GAC<br>
> - Out of scope to consider it at a part of this work but needs to<br>
> consider how to respond<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><br></div></div></div></div>
</div></div></div>