[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG report stability and implementation (was Re: inconsistency in bylaws spotted)

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:29:30PM +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> if there is consensus (based on CCWG charter) to change the report that was
> already submitted in the manner proposed then i am fine with it as well.

I am under the impression that, regardless of its consensus,
CCWG-Accountability can't change the report.  The report's been
shipped off.  It's the report that people are evaluating, not the
state of CCWG consensus at any given time.

This is why I have expressed, in some cases strongly, rather serious
reservations about the way "implementation" has proceeded such that
some things the CCWG said may be being adjusted.  Most serious, in my
opinion, is the continued inclusion of 1.1(d) in the draft bylaws.
1.1(d)(ii) includes references to documents that aren't written and
can't possibly be evaluated.  It even includes a reference to an
agreement between ICANN and an entity that does not yet exist and that
might not be named as it is named in these draft bylaws.  The idea
that one can evaluate such a bylaw is, quite frankly, stupefying.  Yet
the inclusion of this provision means that the to-be-written contract
(or under (F) any renewal thereof) can include any provision at all,
and it won't be subject to challenge.

The CCWG can't change its report now, and it must ensure that the
bylaws actually conform with the report as it is written.  If this
creates facts that people are unhappy with, well, that's what
amendment procedures are for.  We'll get to see whether the Empowered
Community actually can work as a community.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com