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

[Alan Greenberg]

Having such a review (ie shutting it down immediately) would not be a 
good thing. There are plenty of people who believe that the whole 
accountability work is a sham, and not treating a Bylaw provision 
seriously would be evidence of that.

Alan

At 28/04/2016 08:28 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:

>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
>><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/c4f22d6e/attachment.html>