Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active.
Paul and all,
It is perfectly possible to ask the board as you requested, but
I have the following remarks:
·
The
board will not find it easy to answer our question unless they conduct a poll
and reach the necessary ¾
·
And
what about if the Board gives an affirmative answer to our question, and when
they receive the recommendation, they don’t reach the required ¾ votes because
one member changed his mind?
·
Bruce
is the Board liaison, and our question to the board should go (officially) through
him, and he couldn’t give an answer if he doesn’t consult with the Board. His
answer has the same weight, assuming that it is just a rough idea about the
Board position.
·
My
opinion is that we should prepare our recommendations for all scenarios to
avoid any surprise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone: + 216 41 649 605
Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
Fax: + 216 70 853 376
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
De :
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de
Paul Rosenzweig
Envoyé : vendredi 2 janvier 2015 16:38
À : 'Seun Ojedeji'
Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Objet : Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are
made
Dear Seun
That is very reasonable. If Bruce is willing to speak for
the Board in this forum I would very much like to hear what he has to say
regarding the questions I’ve asked. [Hate to put you on the spot Bruce.]
Paul
**NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS --
EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
From: Seun Ojedeji
[mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 10:59 PM
To: Paul Rosenzweig
Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Kavouss Arasteh
Subject: RE: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made
Hi Paul,
I think Bruce is the board mouth piece in this process and
we can take his word as from board, I also believe he does board consultation
before responding to seemingly indirect/sensitive inquiry. For me, what is
important is early interaction amongst ourselves, it does not have to be more
formal than the way Bruce is responding.
A lot of us who are involved in both ccwg and CWG would agree on the level of
resources each individual has contributed, the final outcome in this process
should be worth all the commitment.
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 1 Jan 2015 21:35, "Paul
Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
wrote:
Bruce is a wonderful man. But we don’t need his opinion, we need a formal commitment from the Board. That’s why we need to ask the question in an official manner.
Indeed, I would posit that if the accountability working group tasked with ensuring accountability by ICANN is reluctant to even ask the Board a question then the communities capacity to actually reign in Board excess when/if it perceives such would be very limited. If we are so unwilling to even ask a question, will we be willing to tell the Board “no.”
In any event, if we choose not to ask this question, then the scope of WS1 has just expanded to essentially include almost all oversight mechanisms we might conceivably want – which would, I think, be the wrong result.
Warm regards
Paul
**NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 10:09 AM
To: Seun Ojedeji
Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made
Dear All
I agree to the term that no one should dictate the CCWG.
Still why there is a need that we raise any such question to the Board,
Bruce is quite active and requested to continue the Liaison
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Jan 2015, at 15:28, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:Hi Bruce,
Thanks for this information, I will then suggest that this WG determine if those steps will indeed be appropriate for us especially since WS1 is more of a perquisite to transition. One would expect some adjustments on timing and wording rights to be made in the process, also board voting rights in this particular process may need to be agreed upon. It will not be encouraging to have implementation stopped on the basis of no 2/3 board majority....time utilization is an important factor in all these. So the earlier we involve board (without having them dictate for us) the better.
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.On 1 Jan 2015 04:55, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Seun,
>> I think writing to board to know how it will treat the WG outcome especially when some of it's implementations will require by-law modifications that further involve the ICANN community in decision making process may be useful.
In terms of the process for making bylaws changes, changes have previously been made to accommodate recommendations from the review teams associated with the work of the Accountability and Transparency Review Teams (ATRT) https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/atrt-2012-02-25-en .
Any archive of all previous versions of the bylaws is available here:
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/archive-bc-2012-02-25-en
Based on our current practice I would expect the process to be as follows:
- Board accepts recommendations from the CCWG
- General Counsel's office prepares specific text to change in the bylaws
- proposed bylaws changes are put out for public comment (45 days)
- Board then votes on the bylaws amendments - a 2/3 majority of the Board is required to make a bylaw change
If there is significant community comments against the proposed bylaws language - then a new draft of the bylaws would be put out for public comment that is consistent with the recommendations from the CCWG.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________
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
|
|
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. |