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

[Greg Shatan]

I've replied to this point on the original thread.  In short, my proposal
does not change the report.  If anything, the current proposed bylaws text
changes the report by implying that a higher level of approval for the FOI
was intended, when that was not the intent of the group or the proposal.

Greg

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
> Hopefully part of my message is not quoted to imply I support changing the
> report(it's rather to raise the obvious implication of opening up an
> already submitted report). However, just to remove any doubt, It's a +1
> from me on what you have said as well.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> On 26 Apr 2016 14:35, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160426/9198b22e/attachment.html>