[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Next AoC WHOIS Review

[Stephanie Perrin]

I agree with you completely that it would either be a complete waste of 
time, or worse, set us backwards by introducing new elements to take 
into account in our already massive workplan.  Is it possible to 
assemble a review team and have them agree to declare it premature, and 
give themselves another 5 years?  Is it possible to trust a RT to do 
that?  And finally, if I understand correctly, RTs come with travel 
support usually, and this massive effort does not, may I say harrumph if 
this is indeed correct?

cheers Stephanie


On 2016-04-28 4:35, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> As most of you are probably aware, the Affirmation of Commitments 
> (AoC) WHOIS-RT was convened in late 2010, and according to the AoC, a 
> second one should have been convened three years later in 2013 (or 
> depending on how you interpret the wording, in mid-2015, three years 
> after its report was issued. The Review has been postponed (several 
> times I think) by the Board.
>
> The draft Bylaws that will likely soon be enacted shortly following 
> the CCWG Accountability incorporate the AoC Reviews into the Bylaws 
> and set a maximum of five years from the date a RT is convened until 
> the next one must be convened. Under these revised rules, a second 
> WHOIS-RT (which would be an RDS-RT) must have been convened in late 
> 2015. So as soon as we enact the Bylaws, we will already be in 
> violation and the Board will have no wriggle room but to convene a RT 
> immediately.
>
> Given the work that is going on regarding RDS, it might be hard to 
> think up a larger waste of community effort and ICANN staff and 
> funding than to convene a RT on the subject now. At least that is my 
> opinion.
>
> At this stage, the rules we are working under say that the Bylaws 
> should reflect the exact approved recommendations of the CCWG. The 
> issue was raised in yesterday's CCWG meeting and although the 
> "official" position is that we cannot make changes, there was some 
> agreement that we really do not want to do anything really dumb (or at 
> least dumber than some folks think this whole accountability effort 
> is!  ;-) ).
>
> The CCWG legal counsel is looking at how this issue may be addressed, 
> IF it is to be addressed, and input would be useful. VERY QUICKLY.
>
> So I am bringing this to the attention of this WG, and raise a few 
> questions.
>
> 1. Do you think it is reasonable to convene a RDS-RT in the next few 
> months?
>
> 2. If not, when should the next one be?
>
> There is an open Public Comment on the Bylaws - 
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-new-bylaws-2016-04-21-en. 
> In addition to answering the above questions quickly, please submit a 
> comment if you think these Bylaws should not require an immediate RDS-RT.
>
> The Bylaw in question ca be found at 
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-new-bylaws-20apr16-en.pdf 
> , Page 33, Section 4.6(e)(v).
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160428/f11bcd66/attachment.html>