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

[Robin Gross]

I agree with Greg.  This is a clarification in the text that does not change the report in any way.

Thanks,
Robin

> On Apr 26, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <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/b3503818/attachment.html>