[CCWG-ACCT] The whois/RDS-RT bylaw vs. current activities

[avri doria]

hi,

In answer to Andrews question,  I do not believe a PDP can replace a
Review.  Reviews are done by a full community group and PDPs are done by
one SO. Though each  their processes may be open to anyone and everyone,
PDPs may allow for much broader group membership.  They have different
processes and different goals. Another point, the output of a Review is
often input to a PDP as well as other processes.  There may be
dependencies between an ongoing review and a ongoing PDP, but I do not
think the bylaws need to discuss that.

Milton, one good thing about having it in the bylaws is that bylaws are
mutable.

As for the reviews coincident with the transition, I think we should
just do them.  A level setting for the transition would be a good thing
to have.


signed:
Obfuscatia

On 29-Apr-16 12:02, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> Andrew:
> You've hit a nail on a head, and can expect some obfuscation to follow. 
>
> The original Affirmation of Commitments essentially contained a promise - extracted out of the USG by one stakeholder group and imposed on the rest of us without any participation - that ICANN would never change its basic Whois policy. This is one reason why I've never been thrilled about incorporating the AoC into the accountability reform process.  The AoC contained good accountability and transparency language but also got attached to it a bunch of commitments that essentially circumvented the actual bottom up policy process. 
>
> For that reason I would strongly support your suggestion that a review of Whois/RDS not duplicate a PDP. 
>
> --MM
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:13 AM
>> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] The whois/RDS-RT bylaw vs. current activities
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In thinking about the way the bylaws require the regular RTs and how those
>> might interact with other processes, I'm wondering whether we think it would
>> be consistent with the report to say that, if a PDP is going on about any topic
>> that is subject to regular RT, then the PDP can be counted as fulfilling the
>> purposes of the RT?
>>
>> It seems to me that this is consistent with the point of the regular RT
>> requirement (i.e. ensuring that the review happens in a timely way) without
>> entailing that we waste time, money, and energy in multiple, potentially
>> conflicting efforts on the same topic.
>>
>> Have I missed something?
>>
>> 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
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus