With regret, I will not be able to attend this call, as I am accompanying my wife for a medical procedure. Greg Shatan On Monday, November 2, 2015, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
A reminder this meeting starts in half an hour — I got the day but not the date wrong. Monday 2 November at 18h UTC.
Best Jordan
On Monday, 2 November 2015, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');>> wrote:
Dear CCWG as a whole
As ever, you are invited - meeting begins in around 11 hours.
see icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability for the meeting.
best, Jordan
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Date: 2 November 2015 at 19:58 Subject: CORRECTED Agenda - WP1 - 2 Nov at 18h UTC To: "wp1@icann.org" <wp1@icann.org>
Hi all
*I clicked send on the last email before finishing it - please ignore and use this one.*
We have a WP1 meeting scheduled for Tuesday 2 November, from 18h UTC with a max time of 120 mins. I hope the meeting will be a little shorter.
Here are the proposed agenda items in brief - a fuller annotated version follows below. *If you have items to add*, please share them with the list ASAP.
*Brief Agenda: WP1 Call on 2 Nov 2015*
*1. Review of Agenda*
*2. Community Decision making* a) Split decisions within SOs/ACs b) Participating SOs and ACs c) Distribution of decision making between SOs and ACs d) Decision thresholds in the community mechanism
*3. The "Resolution / Dialogue" Step in the escalation path*
*4. Budget Power - Update from J Zuck (IF he is available)*
*5. Update from ICANN Staff about what WP1 needs to do next*
*6. Any Other Business*
Here is a more detailed agenda that sets out how I propose we tackle this.
For each item I've tried to distil my own impression of the sense of the last call, the discussions in Dublin and more broadly from the email traffic among CCWG members. This is in the service of us coming to some conclusions.
As was suggested by Roelof in the last meeting, and amended a little, I'm framing these as "WP1 recommends to the CCWG that......" statements. We can either sign them off, change them, or agree we can't agree and kick it up to the CCWG.
*1. Review of Agenda*
*2. Community Decision making*
In dealing with this agenda item, besides the Working Paper circulated previously < https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH3...>, I attach a slightly updated version of Steve's "homework" paper, Robin's paper with different distribution of decision making power, and the charts that Greg prepared, fyi.
a) Split decisions within SOs/ACs
*WP1 recommends to the CCWG that each SO or AC should come to a decision by means of its own processes, and that "split" decisions or delegating decisions to sub-units will not be available.*
b) Participating SOs and ACs
*WP1 recommends to the CCWG that decision rights for the exercise of community powers be granted to the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, ALAC and GAC. SSAC and RSSAC will be able to advise the other SOs or ACs through the Community Forum. Each SO or AC has the right to participate or not participate in any decision, with their choice not affecting the thresholds established for the exercise of community powers.*
c) Distribution of decision making between SOs and ACs
*WP1 recommends to the CCWG that each of the five SOs and ACs with decision rights have an equality of voice/influence in decisions to exercise community powers.*
d) Decision thresholds in the community mechanism
*WP1 recommends to the CCWG that the levels of agreement among SOs and ACs in support of exercising a power, and the limits to levels of opposition, be agreed as those set out in the paper from Steve DelBianco updated by Jordan Carter and discussed at this meeting.*
*3. The "Resolution / Dialogue" Step in the escalation path*
To the best of my knowledge the WP1 hasn't discussed the escalation path as a group. I have some specific concerns about the appropriateness of a "resolution/dialogue" step in exercising some of the powers - removal of individual directors, and the standard and fundamental bylaws.
In those powers I think adding this step simply slows down what needs to happen - for individual director removal it's the SO and ACs decision and the chances of it coming out of the blue are low.
For the bylaws powers, the appropriate step once the community has not adopted or blocked a bylaws change is a resolution process that leads to a new proposed bylaws change. With public comment etc. That's what would happen today, and that's the right resolution -- not some kind of negotiation.
For the remaining powers - say, rejection of a budget etc - this resolution / dialogue might be useful. But we would have to specify WHO the resolution or discussion was between. Is this simply handing a new role and responsibility to the SO/AC leadership cadre?
If not, to whom? Remember, our Community Forum and Community Mechanism are not committees, have no representatives, and just act on the decisions of the SOs and ACs.
*4. Budget Power - Update from J Zuck (IF he is available)*
*5. Update from ICANN Staff about what WP1 needs to do next*
It would be great to hear from ICANN staff what they need for us to do as WP1 to make the 15 November deadline.
*6. Any Other Business*
*Papers*
The papers mentioned above - from Steve/me, from Greg, from Robin, are attached.
Thanks all, speak soon,
Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity