I didn't realize you were such a big Justin Bieber fan. My apologies, then. On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Well you started the scenario painting in the first place so I had the share of your insult as well. If the same person raise petition through multiple SO/AC and survives the internal processes of those SO/AC to remove their respective individual members then such person deserves the next Ethos award.
If you think the SO/AC community could be so drunk/distracted by approving/supporting such petition then maybe it's another reason why allowing appointing SO/AC remove her board member is flawed.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Nov 2015 19:53, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps you want the role to be restricted to leaders of SO/AC so Greg as
the president of IPC can be the only one within IPC to raise such petition. Sorry that won't be implementing the concept of MS and I thought you do value that.
I did not in any way express or imply such an absurd thing, and I'm rather insulted that you would even raise the possibility. Perhaps you will find a way to join the few SO/ACs you haven't yet joined, so that you can raise a petition wherever you feel like it, even if the right is restricted.
That seems like a much better plan for world domination, with much less work, than chairing a constituency.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Since you have the understanding below then that is correct and there is noting wrong with that; The petition only becomes recognised as legitimate when the SO/AC owns it.
I don't see what the issue is in that scenario, an individual (or group of people) raise a need, it goes through the particular SO/AC consideration processes and becomes a formal petition of the concerned SO/AC.
Perhaps you want the role to be restricted to leaders of SO/AC so Greg as the president of IPC can be the only one within IPC to raise such petition. Sorry that won't be implementing the concept of MS and I thought you do value that.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Nov 2015 19:25, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't believe Page 18 addresses my concerns. It says:
The petition can only be started in the SO or AC that nominated the Director.
It does not limit who can start that petition. As such, Justin Bieber could start a petition (or Seun Ojedeji -- oops I see you are are member of NCSG (along with ALAC and the ASO) so you could start a petition almost anywhere regardless of restrictions) in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin (a GNSO-appointed Director). So, my concern stands.....
If there's something I'm missing on page 18, please let me know.
Greg
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Nov 2015 18:08, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
A few quick comments, since that's all there's time for under this
plan. I was only able to review my prior comments against this draft; no time for a full read.
1. Page 11: Petition Process: Is it clear that any individual,
regardless of affiliation can begin a petition in any AC/SO for every power? Even removing that AC/SO's appointed director? For example, can Justin Bieber start a petition in the GNSO to remove Bruce Tonkin? If that is what we agreed to, never mind. It just strikes me as odd, and I haven't seen it expressed this way before. (I think we used the passive voice before, which did not identify the "actor" or any limitation on their identity or affiliation.)
SO: Page 18 addresses your fears.
Cheers!
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Mathieu Weill <
mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
> > Dear Sabine, > > > > I think that this is version issue. The version of the document you are referencing is the incorrect one. > > > > Indeed, it was part of the transparency issues mentioned in Dublin and, during the CCWG call #65 we specifically discussed the item (see the slides here : https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56144581/WP2%20Issues%202%2...) and acknowledged that there we had received several requests to address this issue in WS2. > > > > Thank you for raising this consistency issue. > > > > Best, > > Mathieu > > > > De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Sabine.Meyer@bmwi.bund.de > Envoyé : vendredi 13 novembre 2015 15:01 > À : turcotte.bernard@gmail.com > Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org > Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call > > > > Dear Bernard, > > > > thank you for updating and re-sending the draft! > > > > To my understanding, the list of WS2 items on p 29 does not yet reflect the current status of discussions if indeed the latest version is the following: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/AJed%2020151026%20... > > > > In that case, “ICANN’s interaction with governments” is currently not part of the draft. > > Thank you for considering this. > > > > Kind regards > > > > Sabine Meyer > > International Digital and Postal Policy, Internet Governance > > Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy > > Villemombler Strasse 76, 53123 Bonn > > GERMANY > > Phone: +49 228 99615-2948 > > Fax: + 49 228 99615-2964 > > E-Mail: sabine.meyer@bmwi.bund.de > > Internet: http://www.bmwi.de > > > > Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bernard Turcotte > Gesendet: Freitag, 13. November 2015 00:04 > An: Accountability Cross Community > Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call > > > > All, > > > > As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting. > > > > The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist. > > > > This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on. > > > > We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments. > > > > Bernard Turcotte > > ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG > > > > for the CCWG Co-chairs. > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community