[CWG-Stewardship] Input Needed: Bylaws Matrix Responses and Three Issues

Gomes, Chuck cgomes at verisign.com
Thu Mar 3 16:45:51 UTC 2016 

These suggestions seem fine to me.

Chuck



Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
Date: 02/29/2016 5:47 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com>
Cc: Nathalie Vergnolle <nathalie.vergnolle at icann.org>, Akram Atallah <akram.atallah at icann.org>, cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Input Needed: Bylaws Matrix Responses and Three Issues

Thank you Martin and Cheryl. Is there any additional feedback? We would like to finalize this by the end of the week.

Summary of feedback so far:

Issue #1 Thresholds: Move forward with current practices, i.e. simple majority, since CSC Charter amendments will go a public comment process prior to approval by the ccNSO and GNSO.

  *   Support: Donna, Paul, Cheryl, Martin
  *   No objections

Issue #2 Timing of 1st IFR: Martin suggested the following compromise text: "will commence not later than two years after the Transition”
​​
 ​


  *   Support: Martin, Cheryl
  *   No objections

Issue #3 Use of the Empowered Community mechanisms for the Special IFR: There is support for using the community mechanisms, but in order to provide flexibility in the Bylaws, and for the Special IFR process, Martin suggested:
" ...​
allow the RySG and/or ccNSO to launch a consultation process leading to a review
​...​
 "​
 ​


  *   Support: Martin, Cheryl
  *   No objections

Please send your feedback as soon as possible on list so that we can pass the responses to Sidley and proceed with the work plan.

Thank you,
Grace

From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>>
Date: Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:10 PM
To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org>>
Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>, Nathalie Vergnolle <nathalie.vergnolle at icann.org<mailto:nathalie.vergnolle at icann.org>>, Akram Atallah <akram.atallah at icann.org<mailto:akram.atallah at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Input Needed: Bylaws Matrix Responses and Three Issues

Grace thank you for this... Sorry for a slight delay in reply, please see my responses inter-spaces below... <CLO>


<http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ...  (CLO)

about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr






On 26 February 2016 at 04:41, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org>> wrote:
Dear CWG-Stewardship and ICANN Implementation Team,

Please see attached the latest version of the responses to the Sidley Bylaws Matrix as well as a list of three currently unresolved issues for CWG-Stewardship input (also copied below for your convenience). The action assigned on the CWG-Stewardship call today was to share these documents with the group, and simultaneously with the ICANN implementation team for any input they may have.

On the CWG-Stewardship call today, we outlined the three issues and had an initial, but non-conclusive, discussion about them. On the thresholds issue, Donna Austin suggests we go with current practices, i.e. simple majority, since Charter amendments will go a public comment process prior to approval by the ccNSO and GNSO. Paul Kane agrees.

Looking forward to your input,
Grace

A recap of the three issues presented on call (also in document attached):

There are three issues for the CWG-Stewardship to address:

Issue #1: Thresholds

For the CSC Charter, the CCNSO and GNSO Councils must approve amendments. The DT leads noted that the intention is that the respective Councils (ccNSO and GNSO) would vote to ratify any proposed charter amendment/s and the threshold would be in accordance with their respective methods of operation. However, the current responses further suggest that, “supermajority of both Councils would seem appropriate if this can be accommodated.”

Staff would like to note that supermajority may not be consistent with current practice in the GNSO and CCNSO Councils. In the case of the GNSO, the default voting threshold is simple majority of each house. Should a supermajority vote be deemed appropriate for this purpose, the relevant section in the ICANN bylaws that details voting thresholds that differ from simple majority, would need to be updated.

Does the CWG want to define a higher threshold for the CCNSO and GNSO councils or proceed with existing operating procedures within the Councils?
​

​​
<CLO>
​ I  would suggest going with the existing OP's within the Councils...​
​



Issue #2: Timing of the first IANA Function Review

Paragraph (194) of the CWG Final Proposal provides that the IFR “will not commence” until two years after this date, but Paragraph (301) provides that the initial IFR must be completed by this 2-year anniversary

Current response: Paragraph 301 being focused on the IFR while Paragraph 194 being a timetable makes Paragraph 301 the determining one. However, Paragraphs 267/268 seem to confirm the ambiguity. Separately, Paragraph 194 does allow, however for a Special IFR sooner than 2 years if needed.

CWG needs to choose:

1.    The first IFR will not commence until two years after the Transition

2.    The first IFR will be completed by the 2-year anniversary of the Transition

​
​​

​
​
<CLO>
​ I rather like the text proposed by Martin =>
​
“will commence not later than two years after the Transition”
​​
​



Issue #3: Use of the Empowered Community mechanisms for the Special IFR

The CWG needs to consider specifying a forum and process for the Special IFR. Paragraphs (125) and (303) of the CWG Final Proposal provide that consideration of whether to trigger a Special IFR “may” include a public comment period but is silent on who determines whether there should be a public comment period.

If the CWG-Stewardship adopts the Empowered Community mechanism of the CCWG-Accountability, then the process for escalation includes a discussion forum. Would that be sufficient? If not, the CWG-Stewardship could mandate a standard ICANN public comment period before triggering a Special IFR.
​

​
​

​
​
<CLO>
​ In my view it would be best for most circumstances ( and provide a higher degree of understanding  and predictability within the wider ICANN Community if the CWG-Stewardship adopts the Empowered Community Mechanism of the CCWG-Accountability, but again I am rather leaning towards also picking up in the flexibility allowed by Martin's proposed text =>
​
​   ​
​" ...​
allow the RySG and/or ccNSO to launch a consultation process leading to a review
​...​
"​
​



_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160303/7c51beec/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list