[CWG-Stewardship] Remaining Questions re CWG punch list

[Lise Fuhr]

Dear Holly and Rebecca,

We discussed your questions at the CWG call today and the we decided to follow both your recommendations. But the CWG found that a clarification is needed so there is a clear reference in the bylaws to a supermajority vote by the GNSO council and the ccNSO council.

If you have any questions in relation to the clarification please don’t hesitate to contact me or other members of the client committee.

Best regards,
Lise



From: bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org [mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gregory, Holly via bylaws-coord
Sent: 30 March 2016 00:05
To: jrobinson at afilias.info; Lise Fuhr; bylaws-coord at icann.org
Cc: Flanagan, Sharon
Subject: [bylaws-coord] Remaining Questions re CWG punch list
Importance: High

Dear Jonathan and Lise, and CWG participants in the Bylaws Coordinating Group,

We appreciate the guidance provided on our questions last week from the CWG bylaw drafting session.  We have two outstanding questions from the punch list we re-circulated last week.  We have pasted them below for your convenience.  As you know, our deadline to circulate bylaws is at the end of this week.  We greatly appreciate your attention to this. To expedite matters we have included our recommendation for you to consider.

Question 1. (and 12, 16, 17 &18)  Please confirm GNSO and ccNSO supermajority approval threshold.  Page 1 of CWG Staff’s response chart refers to supermajority voting of the relevant SO, but page 11 of the CWG Staff’s response chart states that the CWG “has agreed to keep the current practices (i.e., simple majority voting) for both the GNSO and ccNSO.” As the proposal specifically contemplates a supermajority vote for material changes to the IANA Functions Contract, the reference to “simple” majority on page 11 of the response chart appears to be an error. (Page 10 of Bylaws matrix); same question in relation to approval of recommendations relating to the IFR relating to the Special IFR and SCWG establishment and the separation process.
Recommendation: Supermajority vote


Question 19. Determine number of days within which ICANN must take all steps reasonably necessary to effect SCWG recommendations: “As promptly as practical (and within [●] [days]) following the SCWG recommendations, or in the event of an SCWG recommendation to initiate a Separation Process, as promptly as practical (and within [●] [days]) following the approval of such recommendation, ICANN shall take all steps reasonably necessary to effect such SCWG recommendations.” (Page 56 of Bylaws Matrix)

Recommendation: 30 days

Holly and Rebecca

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160331/8e1921c7/attachment-0001.html>