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

Tue Apr 14 13:52:14 UTC 2015

Keith,

You are correct.  There was a conscious decision to shift the term, since
"golden bylaw" was ambiguous.

Greg

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Carlos Raul <carlosraulg at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Greg, Keith!
>
> For Spanish speaking folks is easier to remember "fundamental" (as opposed
> to "universal" on the one extreme, and "subjective" rights on the other).
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 07:25 Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:
>
>>  Thanks Greg.
>>
>>  I think we've also used the term "golden bylaw" in the past to
>> describe a similar concept.
>>
>>  Best,
>> Keith
>>
>> On Apr 14, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>   A "fundamental" bylaw is one that is more difficult to change than a
>> regular bylaw.  For instance, there would be a higher threshold for a vote
>> to change a fundamental bylaws.
>>
>>  The content of a fundamental bylaw can be just about anything.
>> However, usually fundamental bylaws cover things that are essential to the
>> nature of the organization.
>>
>>  Greg
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Kavouss,
>>>
>>> I provide some answers inline, with the purpose to clarify where matters
>>> are currently handled.
>>>
>>> Le 14/04/2015 10:24, Kavouss Arasteh a écrit :
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> Adam circulated the agenda yesterday (see attachment)
>>>
>>>> 2. hyperlink the documents in the order of  their pre3sentation
>>>>
>>> The relevant links to the available documents are in the attachment
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> that is our plan.
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> None of these memos is intended to be a direct work product of our
>>> group. However legal advice will provide during our call a general recap of
>>> their views, and you (and other colleagues) will have the opportunity to
>>> ask questions.
>>>
>>>> 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 .
>>>>
>>> We will provide this question to the legal advisors, through the legal
>>> group
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> This point is currently being discussed within WP1 proposals. I am sure
>>> they will consider this input.
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> This item is on our agenda today, so we'll have the opportunity to
>>> exchange during the session.
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> This point is currently being discussed within WP1 proposals. I am sure
>>> they will consider this input.
>>>
>>>> 8.Inconsistencies between the title and the body of the texts in
>>>> 6.5.2,6.5.3, 6.5.4 .
>>>>
>>> I suppose you also refer to WP1.
>>>
>>>> 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"
>>>>
>>> The "fundamental Bylaw" concept was introduced in Singapore and
>>> confirmed during the CCWG call that ensued. WP2 is tassked with definition
>>> and scoping of that concept we are introducing. I am confident their input
>>> will address your question.
>>>
>>> I hope that is helpful to clarify.
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Mathieu
>>>
>>>  tHERE ARE MANY MANY CASES LIKE THE ABOVE THAT NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED.
>>>> We need to carefully look at these
>>>> Regards
>>>> Kavouss
>>>>   .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>  --
>>> *****************************
>>> Mathieu WEILL
>>> AFNIC - directeur général
>>> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
>>> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>>> Twitter : @mathieuweill
>>> *****************************
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>    _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150414/1db81f54/attachment.html>