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

[Greg Shatan]

+1 to "Obfuscatia."

Greg

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:16 PM, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160429/63ef3269/attachment-0001.html>