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

[Kavouss Arasteh]

As N ICG liaison
I fully support Andrew to strongly object reference to any agreement yet to be drafted .
NO BLANKET AGREEMENT IS SUPPORTED
KAVOUSD  

Sent from my iPhone

> On 26 Apr 2016, at 16:13, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> 
> After I typed my note and sent it, I saw this from Andrew who, as usual,
> expressed it better than I could have done.
> 
> +1 Andrew
> P
> 
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> www.redbranchconsulting.com
> My PGP Key
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 9:35 AM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG report stability and implementation (was Re:
> inconsistency in bylaws spotted)
> 
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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