April 29, 2016
11:24 a.m.
+1 to "Obfuscatia." Greg On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:16 PM, avri doria <avri@apc.org> wrote: > hi, > > In answer to Andrews question, I do not believe a PDP can replace a > Review. Reviews are done by a full community group and PDPs are done by > one SO. Though each their processes may be open to anyone and everyone, > PDPs may allow for much broader group membership. They have different > processes and different goals. Another point, the output of a Review is > often input to a PDP as well as other processes. There may be > dependencies between an ongoing review and a ongoing PDP, but I do not > think the bylaws need to discuss that. > > Milton, one good thing about having it in the bylaws is that bylaws are > mutable. > > As for the reviews coincident with the transition, I think we should > just do them. A level setting for the transition would be a good thing > to have. > > > signed: > Obfuscatia > > On 29-Apr-16 12:02, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Andrew: > > You've hit a nail on a head, and can expect some obfuscation to follow. > > > > The original Affirmation of Commitments essentially contained a promise > - extracted out of the USG by one stakeholder group and imposed on the rest > of us without any participation - that ICANN would never change its basic > Whois policy. This is one reason why I've never been thrilled about > incorporating the AoC into the accountability reform process. The AoC > contained good accountability and transparency language but also got > attached to it a bunch of commitments that essentially circumvented the > actual bottom up policy process. > > > > For that reason I would strongly support your suggestion that a review > of Whois/RDS not duplicate a PDP. > > > > --MM > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > >> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of > >> Andrew Sullivan > >> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:13 AM > >> To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org > >> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] The whois/RDS-RT bylaw vs. current activities > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> In thinking about the way the bylaws require the regular RTs and how > those > >> might interact with other processes, I'm wondering whether we think it > would > >> be consistent with the report to say that, if a PDP is going on about > any topic > >> that is subject to regular RT, then the PDP can be counted as > fulfilling the > >> purposes of the RT? > >> > >> It seems to me that this is consistent with the point of the regular RT > >> requirement (i.e. ensuring that the review happens in a timely way) > without > >> entailing that we waste time, money, and energy in multiple, potentially > >> conflicting efforts on the same topic. > >> > >> Have I missed something? > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> A > >> > >> -- > >> Andrew Sullivan > >> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >