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

Wed Nov 18 22:09:46 UTC 2015

hi Seun

That document mentioned is the one I sent today, about ~1 hour ago.

cheers!
Jordan

On 19 November 2015 at 11:00, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 *
>>
>>

-- 
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/20151119/359eb083/attachment-0001.html>