[CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hi Paul,

I think Bruce is the board mouth piece in this process and we can take his
word as from board, I also believe he does board consultation before
responding to seemingly indirect/sensitive inquiry. For me, what is
important is early interaction amongst ourselves, it does not have to be
more formal than the way Bruce is responding.
A lot of us who are involved in both ccwg and CWG would agree on the level
of resources each individual has contributed, the final outcome in this
process should be worth all the commitment.

Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 1 Jan 2015 21:35, "Paul Rosenzweig" <
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

> Bruce is a wonderful man.  But we don’t need his opinion, we need a formal
> commitment from the Board.  That’s why we need to ask the question in an
> official manner.
>
>
>
> Indeed, I would posit that if the accountability working group tasked with
> ensuring accountability by ICANN is reluctant to even ask the Board a
> question then the communities capacity to actually reign in Board excess
> when/if it perceives such would be very limited.  If we are so unwilling to
> even ask a question, will we be willing to tell the Board “no.”
>
>
>
> In any event, if we choose not to ask this question, then the scope of WS1
> has just expanded to essentially include almost all oversight mechanisms we
> might conceivably want – which would, I think, be the wrong result.
>
>
>
> Warm regards
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> ***NOTE:  OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ****
>
> 509 C St. NE
>
> Washington, DC 20002
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
>
> Link to my PGP Key
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
>
>
>
> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 1, 2015 10:09 AM
> *To:* Seun Ojedeji
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made
>
>
>
> Dear All
>
> I agree to the term that no one should dictate the CCWG.
>
> Still why there is a need that we  raise any such question to the Board,
>
>  Bruce is quite active and requested to continue the Liaison
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On 1 Jan 2015, at 15:28, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> Thanks for this information, I will then suggest that this WG determine if
> those steps will indeed be appropriate for us especially since WS1 is more
> of a perquisite to transition. One would expect some adjustments on timing
> and wording rights to be made in the process, also board voting rights in
> this particular process may need to be agreed upon. It will not be
> encouraging to have  implementation stopped on the basis of no 2/3 board
> majority....time utilization is an important factor in all these. So the
> earlier we involve board (without having them dictate for us) the better.
>
> Regards
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On 1 Jan 2015 04:55, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Seun,
>
> >>  I think writing to board to know how it will treat the WG outcome
> especially when some of it's implementations will require by-law
> modifications that further involve the ICANN community in decision making
> process may be useful.
>
> In terms of the process for making bylaws changes, changes have previously
> been made to accommodate recommendations from the review teams associated
> with the work of the Accountability and Transparency Review Teams (ATRT)
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/atrt-2012-02-25-en .
>
> Any archive of all previous versions of the bylaws is available here:
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/archive-bc-2012-02-25-en
>
> Based on our current practice I would expect the process to be as follows:
>
> - Board accepts recommendations from the CCWG
>
> - General Counsel's office prepares specific text to change in the bylaws
>
> - proposed bylaws changes are put out for public comment  (45 days)
>
> - Board then votes on the bylaws amendments  - a 2/3 majority of the Board
> is required to make a bylaw change
>
> If there is significant community comments against the proposed bylaws
> language - then a new draft of the bylaws would be put out for public
> comment that is consistent with the recommendations from the CCWG.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150102/b593eb93/attachment.html>