[CCWG-ACCT] PDP interaction with bylaws veto - proposed approach

Wed Nov 18 22:00:54 UTC 2015

Hello Jordan,

Actually I had made my point prior to yesterday and I just followed up when
I did not get your response. So I hope it was reported during the call
yesterday.

That said, may I know what the group's decision is on this (came in late on
the call yesterday and only heard where you said you will be sharing a
document in few hours?)

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 18 Nov 2015 22:09, "Jordan Carter" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

> hi Seun
>
> I think I understand your point of view, but the CCWG discussed and made a
> decision on this matter at the call yesterday and so I think it's closed.
> If the SOs can live with the way it's been set out, I think the rest of us
> probably should too.
>
> cheers,
> Jordan
>
>
> On 19 November 2015 at 04:09, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello Jordan,
>>
>> Just incase you did not get my initial mail, I am resending and would be
>> good to get a response to my question.
>>
>> I don't think any outcome of a PDP should be subject to community veto
>> unless a particular SO found that the board's implementation of the policy
>> does not reflect the true interpretation of the particular policy and such
>> petition should even the initiated/restricted to the affected SO. So as an
>> example, it will be wrong for GNSO to initiate a petition against a policy
>> implementation that emerged from the ccNSO. Even at that, the community
>> power should only be available as last resort to such SO; after exhausting
>> the reconsideration processes in their PDP.
>>
>> There is a proverb in my local language which says "...Chicken does not
>> eat another chicken intestines" it is absurd to provide a means of
>> weakening respective PDPs instead of strengthening it and that's the reason
>> why I don't think the second requirement you indicated is appropriate.
>>
>> Regards
>> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>> On 17 Nov 2015 08:51, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Jordan,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the share, just curious on your statement below:
>>>
>>> "A blanket rule that no standard bylaws veto could apply to a PDP bylaws
>>> change (rejected because this seemed to change the community power more
>>> than minimally)"
>>>
>>> Do you mean this has been proposed on the list and already rejected? As
>>> it seem to be ideal way to go. So after ensuring what you've suggested in
>>> item 1, I think it will be good for what you stated above to follow suite.
>>> Although will suggest further modification as thus:
>>>
>>> "A blanket rule that no standard bylaws veto could apply to a PDP bylaws
>>> change, so long as the change reflects true interpretation of the PDP
>>> policy"
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>> On 17 Nov 2015 08:32, "Jordan Carter" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> *Dear CCWG colleagues,*
>>>>
>>>> *PDP Interaction with Bylaws Veto*
>>>>
>>>> In developing accountability improvements for ICANN, the CCWG has been
>>>> careful to try not to change ICANN's core policy-making processes. The
>>>> tools it has proposed to improve accountability are generally aimed at
>>>> ICANN-wide issues, not policy development in the SOs.
>>>>
>>>> An example has been raised where policymaking and the bylaws veto power
>>>> might clash. Here is the scenario:
>>>>
>>>> *The outcome of a PDP within an SO could mean that some consequential
>>>> changes to the ICANN bylaws were needed to implement its recommendations.*
>>>>
>>>> *PDP is core policy making and should not be subject to community veto.*
>>>>
>>>> *If the PDP *did* require bylaws changes, and those changes *were*
>>>> subject to the veto, then in effect the community veto would apply to
>>>> policymaking.*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a gap in our core proposal which can reasonably easily be
>>>> closed.
>>>>
>>>> *Here is the simplest way to close the gap and ensure policy-making is
>>>> protected from said veto:*
>>>>
>>>> *1: put a requirement (in the bylaws) that any Bylaws changes that are
>>>> required to implement a PDP are clearly identified in this way, and are not
>>>> combined with other, non-PDP related bylaws changes.*
>>>>
>>>> *2: put a requirement in the Standard Bylaws veto process that for
>>>> these two steps of the community escalation process:*
>>>> * -- decision to hold a community forum*
>>>> * -- decision to exercise the veto power*
>>>> *the SO which has performed the PDP giving rise to the Bylaws
>>>> change MUST express its SUPPORT for the exercise of the veto.*
>>>>
>>>> This approach has the least possible interference with the scheme of
>>>> our community powers, does not reopen questions about relative weights
>>>> between SOs/ACs, does not ban a veto being considered, etc. The community
>>>> can still trigger a veto process and have the conference call, so issues
>>>> causing concern will be discussed in a community-wide forum.
>>>>
>>>> If this exceptional treatment to a bylaws change means the community
>>>> really can't live with the outcome of a PDP and associated bylaws changes,
>>>> they have a number of remedies they could use:
>>>>
>>>> - they can work with the Board to ensure that the bylaws change
>>>> proposal doesn't get the required (2/3?) majority in the Board to be
>>>> approved (and so would not be implemented)
>>>>
>>>> - they can recall the ICANN Board and replace it with a different Board
>>>> that will follow the community's wishes in not implementing such a bylaws
>>>> change
>>>>
>>>> In other words, this does not leave the possibility of rogue "ICANN
>>>> transformation by PDP" on the table.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Other options I considered were:
>>>>
>>>> - a blanket rule that no standard bylaws veto could apply to a PDP
>>>> bylaws change (rejected because this seemed to change the community power
>>>> more than minimally)
>>>>
>>>> - a rule that no standard bylaws veto could apply to a PDP bylaws
>>>> change unless it exceeded certain impacts - for instance a net financial
>>>> impact of $0.5m (rejected because it would be complex to decide the
>>>> principles to apply to what was in and what was out, and because boundary
>>>> cases would need adjudication)
>>>>
>>>> - a rule that no standard bylaws veto could apply to a PDP bylaws
>>>> change that only affected the Bylaws that constitute that SO (rejected
>>>> because policy may properly go beyond the structure of the SO's bylaws)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I look forward to your feedback on this proposed way through, and I
>>>> thank those who have taken the time to discuss the issue with me in coming
>>>> to this recommendation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>> Jordan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jordan Carter
>>>> WP1 Rapporteur, CCWG
>>>>
>>>> Chief Executive
>>>> *InternetNZ*
>>>>
>>>> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
>>>> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>>>> Skype: jordancarter
>>>> Web: www.internetnz.nz
>>>>
>>>> *A better world through a better Internet*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jordan Carter
>>>> Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>>>>
>>>> +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>>>>
>>>> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
> Web: www.internetnz.nz
>
> *A better world through a better Internet *
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151118/2afb4a61/attachment-0001.html>