[CWG-Stewardship] Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table

Thu Jun 30 13:49:40 UTC 2016

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 30 Jun 2016 16:32, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info> wrote:
>
>
> Note that in the (b) scenario, the independent directors could
effectively veto the chair since the ICANN nominated and appointed chair
would (I assume) not have a vote in their own selection.
>
SO: Correct though I would note that it should be construed in such a way
that would ensure a collective decision of the 2 independent members can
make such veto happen.

In that sense I would say that only the ICANN appointed board member who is
elected Chair should not have a vote in the veto process. I think the
second ICANN board appointee should have a vote. This maintains balance
across the 2 categories.

Regards
>
>
> Thank-you,
>
>
>
>
>
> Lise & Jonathan
>
>
>
> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info]
> Sent: 29 June 2016 11:36
> To: 'Seun Ojedeji' <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>; 'Chuck Gomes' <
cgomes at verisign.com>
>
> Cc: 'Lise Fuhr' <lise.fuhr at difo.dk>; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated draft of responses in PTI
Bylaws-AoI table
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
> Thank-you for the additional thoughtful input.
>
>
>
> Lise and I have met to discuss these points and we feel that there is a
delicate balance to manage here, taking account of key issues as follows:
>
>
>
> 1.      This has been thoroughly discussed over a number of meetings
(following the five step process outlined on 6 June 2016)
>
> 2.      Key issues for many in the CWG are the very fine balance between
independence of PTI and its legal affiliation to ICANN.
> The Nom Com selected appointees are seen by many as not necessarily being
more “superior and trustworthy” as such but they are, by definition,
independent of ICANN. It is this independence that is a key factor.
>
> 3.      The opportunity for the CWG to draft specifications to the Nom
Com for director qualifications thus ensuring relevant competence
(including chair skills) of Nom Com selected nominee directors
>
> 4.      Our timeline for conclusion (including the plan to publish bylaw
documents for public comment imminently)
>
> 5.      The opportunity for future review (in 2 years)
>
>
>
> On the basis of the above, we are proceeding as previously outlined.
>
>
>
> Thank-you again,
>
>
>
> Lise & Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
> Sent: 28 June 2016 20:52
> To: Chuck Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com>
> Cc: Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr at difo.dk>; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated draft of responses in PTI
Bylaws-AoI table
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I assume it's the board votes that would determine who is more qualified
and not any external sources, other than that, my +1 to Chuck's suggested
edit.
>
> Regards
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 28 Jun 2016 4:41 p.m., "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>>
>> Greg/James,
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you saying that you believe the chair must be one of the NomCom
appointees?  If so, what if neither of the non-Nom nominated directors is
as qualified as one of the ICANN appointed directors (excluding he PTI
President) or if the NomCom nominated directors are not able to commit the
extra time needed to be chair?  Why limit the possibilities?  It seems to
me that we would want the best qualified leader to serve as Board chair.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with Seun’s concern but I would be okay with language along this
line:  “The Board chair should be one of the NomCom appointees unless they
are unable to serve in that capacity or if one of the other directors
(excluding the President) are more qualified.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 3:07 AM
>> To: James Gannon
>> Cc: Lise Fuhr; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated draft of responses in PTI
Bylaws-AoI table
>>
>>
>>
>> Agee with Matt and James.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:42 AM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:
>>
>> Agree with Matt for the record.
>>
>>
>>
>> -J
>>
>>
>>
>> From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Matthew Shears <
mshears at cdt.org>
>> Date: Tuesday 28 June 2016 at 09:34
>> To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr at difo.dk>, "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <
cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated draft of responses in PTI
Bylaws-AoI table
>>
>>
>>
>> To be clear I don't agree with the proposed change by Seun to 5.4 for
the reasons that were fully discussed in the meeting in which we agreed the
text.
>>
>> On Tuesday, 28 June 2016, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Co-Chairs,
>>
>> May I know if these comments of mine are received and would be
implemented as proposed especially as there is no opposition on the
suggestions from the list?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sent from my LG G4
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>> On 27 Jun 2016 01:49, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Somehow this skipped my raider, while this is already late, i could not
come swallow  2 points from the final text.
>>
>> Section 5.4: I am quite concerned and wonder why we include the
following text:
>> "The Chairperson should be a NomCom nominated director". The board does
the selection of chair person, so there is NO reason why ICANN appointed
board member cannot be the chairperson if the board wants it. I don't think
i dig turning the nomcom nominees into the defacto source of
chairperson-hood. It seem to me that we are seeing them as more superior
and trustworthy that the rest which is not necessarily always the case.
Ofcourse i am with the rest of the response to that question.
>>
>> Section 7.1: I am concerned by this conclusion "The Corporation will not
need additional officers therefore the board does not need this
capability." as i think its an unnecessary lock-in and can have unforeseen
implications in future. I will be fine with something that reads like below:
>> "The Corporation should not need additional officers therefore the board
may not need this capability. However such may be done with a unanimous
votes from board subject to member(s) approval."
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Following the CWG-Stewardship call today, here attached are the latest
redline and clean versions of the PTI response table to deliver to Sidley.
Please review in the next 24h before we consider these final.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Grace
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Grace Abuhamad
>>
>> Manager, Public Policy
>>
>>
>>
>> ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>>
>> 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006
>>
>> Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638
>>
>>
>>
>> Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition?
>>
>> LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: <iotf-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Grace Abuhamad <
grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 6:49 PM
>> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>, "iotf at icann.org" <
iotf at icann.org>
>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [IOTF] Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table
>>
>>
>>
>> Good catch Chuck. Per your comment and Matthew’s agreement, I was
supposed to delete the sentence beginning with “Member approval NOT
required….”.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ll make the edit in the Google doc and await any further comments
before circulating a new version in time for the CWG call.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Grace
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Grace Abuhamad
>>
>> Manager, Public Policy
>>
>>
>>
>> ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>>
>> 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006
>>
>> Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638
>>
>>
>>
>> Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition?
>>
>> LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
>> Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 6:35 PM
>> To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>, "iotf at icann.org" <
iotf at icann.org>
>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>> Subject: RE: Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table
>>
>>
>>
>> The edits look good to me.  Was the second option in Section 7.6.1
supposed to be deleted?
>>
>>
>>
>> “Board may approve delegation of responsibilities or powers of President.
>>
>>
>>
>> Member approval NOT required for the prescription of additional duties
by the board to the President.[1]   [2]
>>
>>
>>
>> Member approval required for the prescription of additional powers by
the board to the President.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>> From: iotf-bounces at icann.org [mailto:iotf-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf
Of Grace Abuhamad
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 5:16 PM
>> To: iotf at icann.org
>> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> Subject: [IOTF] Updated draft of responses in PTI Bylaws-AoI table
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Per the discussion on today’s IOTF call, here attached is a redline
version of the edits discussed on the call and a clean version to present
to the CWG-Stewardship on Thursday. Thank you for your patience in the live
editing process!
>>
>>
>>
>> --Grace
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Grace Abuhamad
>>
>> Manager, Public Policy
>>
>>
>>
>> ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>>
>> 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006
>>
>> Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638
>>
>>
>>
>> Interested in the IANA Stewardship Trans
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160630/8d56702b/attachment.html>