On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:29:30PM +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
if there is consensus (based on CCWG charter) to change the report that was already submitted in the manner proposed then i am fine with it as well.
I am under the impression that, regardless of its consensus, CCWG-Accountability can't change the report. The report's been shipped off. It's the report that people are evaluating, not the state of CCWG consensus at any given time. This is why I have expressed, in some cases strongly, rather serious reservations about the way "implementation" has proceeded such that some things the CCWG said may be being adjusted. Most serious, in my opinion, is the continued inclusion of 1.1(d) in the draft bylaws. 1.1(d)(ii) includes references to documents that aren't written and can't possibly be evaluated. It even includes a reference to an agreement between ICANN and an entity that does not yet exist and that might not be named as it is named in these draft bylaws. The idea that one can evaluate such a bylaw is, quite frankly, stupefying. Yet the inclusion of this provision means that the to-be-written contract (or under (F) any renewal thereof) can include any provision at all, and it won't be subject to challenge. The CCWG can't change its report now, and it must ensure that the bylaws actually conform with the report as it is written. If this creates facts that people are unhappy with, well, that's what amendment procedures are for. We'll get to see whether the Empowered Community actually can work as a community. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com