[CCWG-ACCT] Agenda and dcoument for today< meeting

[Thomas Rickert]

Kavouss,
thank you for your message and let me also thank you for attention to this and your dedication to the project.

I guess that we can fix most of the points you raised. I expect a lot of clarification from the presentation by the law firms later today.

Please find a few remarks below.

- We have discussed 9.3. of the AOC on a few occasions and there was no objection at the time, but the CCWG as well as the GAC certainly can voice their concerns on this, if any.
- We will discuss ST 18 extensively during today’s call.
- The thresholds are proposals that will be discussed by the group.

Kind regards,
Thomas


> Am 14.04.2015 um 10:24 schrieb Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
> 
> Dear Co-Chairs
> Thank you very much for your valuable works and tireless follow up action.
> In order to avoid difficulties that some of us faced on 13 April WP1meeting opening thnhree docuts almost com[plex ones, may I request you to kindly
> 1. Provide the agenda
> 2. hyperlink the documents in the order of  their pre3sentation
> 3. fFollow ,as usual, the most practiceabkle order of debate taking agenda and walking through it item by item allowing people to comment.and when walking through a given doc. take it portion by portion or section by section in order to have a more efficient process.
> 4..Kindly advise the status of the legal assements Memos, 18 March ,4 April,,10 April, 11, April
> which ones are being discussed where and in what order .
> In most of these Memos, there are variety of options /alternatives for each subject. when and how we reconcile  or at least minimize the number of options and alternatives
> 5. Kindly establish some order for introducing terms and definition . For Example ,in legal Memos , we have terms such as "Members "and "Group Member"are these two having the same meaning or desteny .
> 6.Paragraphs 9.3 and 9.3.1 of AoC  for review process of gTLD and WHOIS in which the chair of GAC( in consultation with GAC members) has an important role in the compositioon of the review team . In transferring these paragraphs to Bylaws, these roles were  not carried forward.Arguments given by two CCWG attendees were not convincing
> 7 For stress test 18, thje argument quoted from the NTIA announcemnet appearing as background for change is not valid since the NTIA statement has had different objectives and did not pointed to the issue of consensus buildingt in GAC..Moreover the explanations given in thwe table are inconsistent with each other .
> Before we go further, we need to consult GAC about this and their position on the matter required to be sought in BA 53 gac MEETING
> 7. There are threshold for certain actions in the document labelled " community empowerment"paragraph 6.5.2  was /is   arbitrarily chosen for example 60% .in other parts of 6.5.5 it is mentioned  20% .Where these thresholds come from
> There are norms, practices to be followed.
> Simple majority, 2/3, 3/4, and 4/5 are threshold normally used.For initiation of an action the threshold is 25% and not 20%.
> Paragrapg 6.5.3 refereed to  mechanism in paragraph 6.5.1 ,in the latter no such mechanism is found
> 8.Inconsistencies between the title and the body of the texts in  6.5.2,6.5.3, 6.5.4 .
> 9. Reference is made to change of /to "Fundamental"Bylaws as well as change of/ to "Bylaws"but there is no mention what is mesant by "fundamental "provirions and how they are distinted from other provisions of Bylaws"nON fUNDAMENTAL"
> tHERE ARE MANY MANY CASES LIKE THE ABOVE THAT NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED.
> We need to carefully look at these
> Regards
> Kavouss
>   .
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150414/4993976c/signature.asc>