[CCWG-ACCT] Inquiry from ICG Regarding Proposed Bylaws Amendments

Sat Jun 20 19:18:55 UTC 2015

Dear Co-Chairs,

To clarify, the point related to coordinating with the CWG Transition on bylaws amendments was made because the CWG Transition has recommended a new Fundamental Bylaw that is dependent upon the CCWG Accountability completing its work, and completing its work in a certain manner. There are dependencies between their work and ours. The work of the CCWG is not dependent upon the CWG, rather, their work is dependent on ours.

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Keith

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 4:13 PM
To: CCWG Accountability
Cc: Lisse Eberhard; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Inquiry from ICG Regarding Proposed Bylaws Amendments

I find myself in agreement with Mr Arasteh.

Never mind the dismal track record of the CCWG accountability, we have retained counsel for legal work.

We need to make clear what we want the bylaws to be and leave the drafting to people who have a clue.

And most certainly will ICANN staff not be put into a position again to control the outcome.

I totally disagree that accountability (bylaws) are subject to work done elsewhere (CWG Stewardship). That work is obviously subject to accountability.

el

--
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Jun 20, 2015, at 11:45, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>> wrote:
That was my understanding as well, and I agree with Bruce's suggestion.

I believe the CCWG should, with the assistance of legal counsel, draft a first cut of proposed bylaw changes. This should of course be coordinated closely with ICANN legal staff.

I also agree with Kavouss that the submission of proposed bylaw changes should be based on the work of the CCWG, which is not yet complete. We need to complete the assessment of public comments first, at a minimum.

All that said, proposed bylaws changes could help clarify and focus the work of the CCWG, so we don't need to wait until we have a consensus final document to begin the drafting.

We should absolutely coordinate with the CWG proposal to ensure the amendments are complementary and not in conflict.

Hope that helps.
Keith

Keith

On Jun 20, 2015, at 11:08 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>> wrote:
I took Bruce to mean that the ICG should task the CWG (& CCWG) to have draft language ready for any implementation elements that require amendments to the Bylaws, and include these in their proposal.

Thanks—

J.

From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
Date: Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 10:54
To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>
Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Inquiry from ICG Regarding Proposed Bylaws Amendments

Bruce
Thank you for message.
I am afford to disagree with you
1. that it is neither the duty nor  responsibility  of ICG , CWG and CCWG to draft modified Bylaws
2 . that CCWG is considering to review its initial proposal in the light of received comments and its conclusions of f2f meeting on 19 June
3. Once the situation becomes clear  (after receiving and considering all  resulting from second public comments)
and the availability of Final proposal, Legal Department of ICANN with or without assistance of external legal Counsel(s) should proceed with the required preparation of Bylaws( standard and fundamental) .
It is therefore totally outside mandate of either ICG ,CWG and CCWG to be engaged with such a delicate and sensitive work
Regards
Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 20 Jun 2015, at 09:36, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>> wrote:
Hello Keith,

Starting to think through the timelines, I think it will be important that the ICG and CWG can start working on a consolidated set of changes to the bylaws.

I have also had some initial discussions with staff to ensure appropriate staff support for this process.

My suggestion would be that as soon as possible the working groups produce a consolidated set of proposed bylaws changes that can be put out for public comment, and refinement.     These consolidated changes can then be submitted to the NTIA along with the proposals.

Regards,
Brue Tonkin

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith
Sent: Friday, 19 June 2015 10:02 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Inquiry from ICG Regarding Proposed Bylaws Amendments

Dear Co-Chairs,

In our capacity as ICG Liaisons to the CCWG-Accountability, Kavouss and I have been asked to request feedback concerning the projected timing and procedure for finalizing proposed bylaws changes.

As you know, the CCWG and the ICG each received an inquiry from NTIA regarding projected timelines for proposal completion, to include implementation. This request is intended to help inform the ICG’s response to NTIA.

As one of the three operational communities submitting proposals to the ICG, the CWG-Transition has identified the need for a fundamental bylaw amendment to secure the PTI structure. For the purpose of public consideration and comment, the ICG is wondering if there’s an opportunity to group the CWG-Transition proposed bylaw amendment text with the bylaw amendments anticipated by the CCWG-Accountability.

A few specific questions:

1.       At what stage in the work of the CCWG-Accountability will proposed bylaws amendment text be published for public comment?

2.       Will the CCWG-Accountability develop specific text for the proposed bylaws amendments, or will that be conducted during a later implementation phase?

3.       Should we consider batching all proposed bylaws changes into a single process, or conduct them separately?

I welcome any further comment by Kavouss.

Thanks and regards,
Keith Drazek

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20150620/7fbb2980/attachment.html>